Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. R. Parasuraman

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 delete. Sandstein 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N. R. Parasuraman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Checked Google and the WP:PRIMARY sources in article, and the subject falls well short of WP:ACADEMIC. Dorama285 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like he has two books with multiple editions: Fundamentals of Financial Derivatives and Financial Management – a step by step approach. Perhaps WP:NAUTHOR? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to my eyes like he would fail criteria 2 through 4 of WP:NAUTHOR. That leaves #1 as the most viable option: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Thoughts or feedback? Dorama285 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Publishing multiple editions does not make a notable author. Delete unless anyone can find actual secondary sources. b uidhe 03:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. With multiple editions from mainstream publishers one would normally expect to find reviews in reliable sources. But I didn't manage to find such, and neither has anyone else in all the time this has been open. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2020 (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.