Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Gupta

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 keep. There were multiple sources provided in this discussion that would appear to confirm the notability of the subject. And they've been there since the 17th. C'mon folks.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta

I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that show his notability. The article appears to fail WP:BIO, specifically WP:CREATIVE, as he is not well known, and it doesn't appear that his works have been under significant attention. (This article was declined speedy deletion ({{db-bio}} on November 16 2008 [1]) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I turned up one good source--a discussion of a gallery exhibit of Gupta's political cartoons at the Daily Excelsior, an English-language Indian daily. There are also refs to a sculptor with the same name; I'm not sure if it's the same person or not. It seems likely that notability could be established in Hindi-language sources, but that's beyond my ability. Rklear (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be more potential sources here: http://massforawareness.org/hindi/media.html Juzhong (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given teh one English language source found so far, it seems likely that additional non-English language sourcs could be found to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per myself. Juzhong (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough for inclusion, but in need of radical clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I read the entry over four times and went name searching on the Internet and other sources. The entry is weak, poorly written, lacks notability and is nearly absence of any independent source material. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only wikipedians would learn to read their own debates. Juzhong (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be specially good if they learned to read them before they tried to censor comments from them. [2] Juzhong (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being poorly written isn't a reason to exclude it, however the first link in the references is broken and the third is a blog, so neither of them can be used. The second is in (according to the page "The Largest Circulated Daily of Jammu and Kashmir", which should qualify. I have a feeling that if some digging were done there could be some more sources to be found.--kelapstick (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page ~~as is would be~~ was a direct copy from here, ~~I am working on it~~.--kelapstick (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I'm just not seeing non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. If coverage existed in triplicate somewhere I would be open to a change of mind. JBsupreme (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need one of those template things. Juzhong (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2008 (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.