The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability in question. Has NO sources for nearly six months now. Last few lines in the article justify non-inclusion rather than inclusion. Some minor BLP violations as well in the article. prashanthns ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
In my opinion this nomination fails WP:BEFORE because the nominator has clearly not bothered to look for sources.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
A mere mention in the New York Times does not establish notability, no. What establishes notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's my position that the New York Times, and Indian national newspapers, are reliable sources and the discussions mentioned above constitute significant coverage.
I find it astonishing that you would disregard my comment so completely as not even to bother looking at the sources I cited, and still have the chutzpah to admonish me for incivility; but it is true that in my surprise, I used the edit summary "Wtf?", and I apologise with all due profuseness.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Today, having slept on it, I realise that I should simply thank you for your contribution. So thank you for the efforts you've shown.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
This seems a perfect fit to me.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability in question. Has NO sources for nearly six months now. Last few lines in the article justify non-inclusion rather than inclusion. Some minor BLP violations as well in the article. prashanthns ( talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
In my opinion this nomination fails WP:BEFORE because the nominator has clearly not bothered to look for sources.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
A mere mention in the New York Times does not establish notability, no. What establishes notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's my position that the New York Times, and Indian national newspapers, are reliable sources and the discussions mentioned above constitute significant coverage.
I find it astonishing that you would disregard my comment so completely as not even to bother looking at the sources I cited, and still have the chutzpah to admonish me for incivility; but it is true that in my surprise, I used the edit summary "Wtf?", and I apologise with all due profuseness.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Today, having slept on it, I realise that I should simply thank you for your contribution. So thank you for the efforts you've shown.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
This seems a perfect fit to me.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply