The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Next What's In. An article can be created if he writes more notable books or otherwise becomes notable independently from this one. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Sharma

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable author, in an article that's little more than a promotion piece. No notable books, no indication that he's a best-seller or an influential person. Note, after reading the last AfD: The Hindu is not the most reliable of sources, and an interview with or review in that newspaper is no guarantee of anything. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm predisposed to agree with you, although he did get some notice from Businessworld and the WSL. I'm a little concerned about the notice being predominantly about the book rather than the author himself, so maybe it'd be best to redirect the article to the book since it does seem to have gotten some notice? I also noticed that the article about the author was in dire need of being re-written since it's not encyclopedic in tone, so I'll work on that just in case more sources are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Next What's In or delete. There's coverage out there, but it's predominantly about the book. I would suggest redirecting it to the book's page and merging any relevant data. I did do a clean to remove the more promotional/resume type material and there's really not much there, so I don't anticipate much needing to be merged. I understand that there's a language barrier here, but the search I did with Google translate was pretty slim.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought this said Business Weekly, but it's a different newspaper entirely. I'm not sure on the reliability of BusinessWorld.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is reliable and verifiable: I am amused that Hindu and Businessworld is being considered as sources that are not reliable. Kindly have a look at their credentials before simple editing things. Kindly have a look at the link http://www.thehindu.com/navigation/?type=static&page=aboutus It started in 1878 and has a readership of 4.06 million. As far as Buisnessworld is concerned it co-owns Star News television channel along with Rupert Murdoch's Star Group and has been operating for more than 2 decades. Businessworld is the largest selling Indian business magazine, and the only business weekly in the country. For more details you may visit http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/businessworld/page/About-Us.html. Thanks Vartmaan (talk. I request you'll to follow the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The main topic may be the book Next What's In but Santosh has got more than trivial mention and therefore deserves a place in wikipedia. Thank You!Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I didn't say it was unreliable. I merely said that since I wasn't familiar with it as a source, I wasn't sure as to how reliable of a source it is. I'm more familiar with the American and UK journals than with the ones in India. Regardless of how notable they are, the factor still remains that the vast majority of sources on Sharma focus predominantly on his book. I do think it shows notability for the book, but not as much for Sharma as an independent topic from the book. It might seem strange, but this is actually fairly normal for books in general. Most authors aren't independently notable apart from their works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm thinking a good guideline to use, here, is whether Mr. Sharma has more than one book published. At this time, he has one - Next What's In. If he, as a businessman, can do something that is remarkably significant outside of general economic improvement (and for that, he'd have to basically flip over the economy of his general area), or get some time to publish another book, then it would be a good case to keep - but unfortunately, it may just be a little bit too soon for Mr. Sharma to be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UI World Vision 2030 : Dear editors Mr. Sharma is not only an author of one book but he has been awarded by one patent, 2copyrights and 5 trademarks in India and more than 25% of his inflows are being used to nurture talents of people below the poverty line. His 10 point vision was inaugurated by the Governor in India and it has been clearly covered by the "Mint and the Wall Street Journal". Kindly see the reference of his UI World Vision in the following link that was deleted http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=16_05_2011_012_005&mode=1 .You can see his views on inclusive and sustainable economics (bridging all the gaps where he has introduced Gross Universal Index (GUI) instead of GDP as the holistic measure for development and growth) and his World Vision to free the world from vicious mental traps. He is not a business man but a cultivator - Universal intelligence (as the references also suggest) and is working on a Universally intelligent model for corporates which is in tune with Universal Intelligence and does not have egoist profit and loss account and balance sheet. This is the reason for promoting "Dissolve the box concept" as thinking out of the box is only forcing corporate to find out new ways to make money remember the thief example which he usually sites to differentiate between Thinking outside the box and Dissolve the box. Kindly be fair and reconsider your stand. Thanking you. Vartmaan !Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Patents, copyrights and Trademarks : Santosh has been awarded a patent on a tool for thought designing and decision making which will "democratize decision making" in true spirit. He has trademarks on "Dissolve the box", "Intent Leadership", "Management U.0", "Designng growth", "Mental Flatteners". You may visit Government of India Site http://124.124.193.235/eregister/eregister.aspx and type the following alloted numbers that is openly verifable. The sources are higly reliable. They are 2139101,2139102,2239886,2249385,2249758. These details were not provided earlier. Kindly reconsider your stand to allow the article on Santosh to be there in wikipedia. Thanking you. Vartmaan.!Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment That's great, but the issue with the articles that were shown was that they focused predominantly on his book and the ideas contained therein. As far as the patents go, merely holding patents and being successful do not in themselves extend notability. Neither does having good ideas. Now if multiple news sources focused on Sharma himself talking about himself then that'd help show notability. The reason I deleted the livemint article was because the article focused on Sharma's book and I felt that it would be best served being used on the book's article as a way of trying to keep Next What's In. By the way, the WSJ link and the LiveMint article is one and the same.[1] (LiveMint is pretty much part of the WSJ and is run under their banner.) You can't use the same article twice to show notability regardless of what the link looks like. It doesn't add anything and it can sometimes look like you're trying to puff up the article. Having lots of links does not guarantee notability and it's better to have fewer links that focus on the article subject (in this case Sharma himself) than to have multiple articles that are either the same or don't really focus on Sharma himself. Again, publishing a book does NOT give Sharma notability. We need articles that focus on him rather than on his book. So far the articles that were removed all focused on Next What's In and did not really discuss Sharma himself. Believe me, I tried to justify having them on the article and I just couldn't see how they'd help this article with notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows

Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now. Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case. What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book. The end. In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication. That, alone, will change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states WP:GNG, Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] ([[User talk:Vartmaan|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
Keep I recognize that the Hindu is not of quite the rigour of some other news sources, but it is one of the two English language news sources for Indian that in practice we rely on. We have to cover the country's notable things using the sources that are available, and in the context, this is.If we didn't accept it for notability , our very weak coverage of India would be very much weaker. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot DGG for your support as the way the other editors have been treating this article was very unfair. It was also ceating a trust deficit as many of our references have been simply removed without even verifying their credentials. "Businessworld" and "Business Today" are leading business magazines with the largest number of readership and references given by them have been unfairly removed. Also the reference of "Mint and the Wall Street Journal" , Financial express - one of the oldest business newspaper have been removed. Kindly have a look at them . . . http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/businessworld/content/Box-Factor.html ; http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/the-winning-way-review/1/16438.html ; http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=16_05_2011_012_005&mode=1 ; http://www.financialexpress.com/news/shelflife/828244/2 ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help us in improving the article with encyclopedic content - Kindly help in improving the article. We also have the referece of http://www.iipmclubs.in/news-and-events/Guest-Lecture-by-Mr.-Santosh-Sharma-(Cultivator---Universal-Intelligence,-Conscious-Advisory-Services-Pvt.Ltd.)-at-IIPM-Hyderabad/which has been removed. Need some urgent help or guidance for a complete information as the matter given now is very incomplete. Also Dissolve the Box article has been removed unfairly when it is completely in line with the WP:GNG guideline which defines significant coverage as more than trivial coverage but it not be the main topic of the article. In the references given you will clearly see that the main heading of the article hints at the box factor and the body of the article explains this idea with examples, usage in day-to-day life, leadership, innovation etc. with advantages and disadvantages. CAn this be termed as trivial coverage. I honestly believe it is significant coverage but it has been removed and i would like to reappeal for that . Help me out to fairly have that article in wikipedia or else it will be against the basic spirit of wikipedia. User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk
Delete then redirect to book, per WP:ONEEVENT. Non-notable accountant who wrote a book of dubious notability. Insufficient sourcing to support an article on this subject and a reasonable search doesn't improve that situation (based on search, apparently a common name for either sex). Anything relevant can be merged into the book. If and when the subject can muster sources superior to the shallow coverage presented, then we could reconsider. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.