Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prajwal Parajuly (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prajwal Parajuly

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

This article's notability has been previously questioned by an unlogged user, and the deletion tag removed by KHill-LTown (talk). Among the reasons given for the lack of notability in that instance were a lack of reliable sources independent of the author (e.g. the pre-eminence of comments from his publisher), as well as the presence of a large section that read like a narrative-form CV. I have tried to clean up the article, by removing unsubstantiated statements, and all I am left with is a publication contract with Quercus and the shortlisting of a story. As it is, I am therefore in doubt whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and is not a personal promotion page (an impression I got from the rather hyperbolic language used before I toned it down). After all, there are many writers who publish books and whose stories get shortlisted for prizes, but not all of them have a Wikipedia page. Has this author won any prizes or earned other recognitions that could justify a claim to notability? As it stands, and after trying to rescue it, I suggest it should be deleted. Shurjoroi (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with The Gurkha's Daughter. The book has received favorable press and, as such, it seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Moreover, the book is currently the biggest reason for the author's notability, so it seems reasonable to keep and merge. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: I have added more references from the Guardian, the Hindustan Times and LiveMint. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2014 (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.