Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vir Singh (author)

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Singh (author)

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

Not a notable academic. He may in retirement head a department of a somewhat obscure, caste-ist educational institution and he may have written/translated quite extensively but neither qualifies him for an article on Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 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 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Willing to decide if given more info: for example, if he isn't getting benefits in retirement for being head the department somewhat obscure, caste-ist educational institution then I say keep; otherwise not too sure. Please give more info about his/her retirement if possible. Were they forced out? --Chan12345 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can find very little about him, which is the main problem. The name is a common one but sources that refer to him are not. The reason for me mentioning the points that I did is because we do have some subject-specific guidelines. Lack of coverage seems to suggest he fails the more general guideline. I know that he has translated a couple of books into English but those books are both very much in the "caste puffery" category of historical revisionism etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 02:14, 13 December 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.