Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh Kumar Kalwar

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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Kalwar

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

Delete The article has been created by the subject himself as seen from the edits of the creator[1].On the grounds of self promotion, non notability and poor references, the article should be deleted.No third party reliable sources.Some media references are there but then wikipedia have to start listing journalists as all of them will have links to their articles.The sources are non reliable.--Poet009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By referencing to IP address does not necessarily means that it has been edited by subject. Even if it has been edited by subject, it should not be judged in any manner whatsoever. It may be that the subject may not meet "notability" however, the sources are valid and please kindly check each of the links carefully, before claiming that the sources are not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete: Per WP:N. This is a vanity autobiography. --Ragib (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Ignore above vote.My dear subject who has given the vote strong keep is likely to be the subject himself as he has contributed nothing except this vanity autobiography.A self published poet can't be notable one.No awards .No significant contributions.Just a vanity autobiography.Reasons have been provided why this article should be deleted.Non notable.--Poet009 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Again you are assuming something which might not be true. "he has contributed nothing except this vanity autobiography".Before you use a word "vanity" please check the reference in the quoted text above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources are very major or seem to indicate any notability. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above three keep !votes are from the same user. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:14, 9 October 2010 (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.