English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Deepak Tripathi

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. –MuZemike 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Tripathi

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

The article fails to make a case against WP:PROF (as a historian) or WP:AUTHOR as a journalist. I find his name as an author and co-contributor on GBooks but nothing obvious in terms of awards or impact on the historical record. Fæ (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - a noted BBC journalist who might pass WP:Author via having his books subjects to independent reviews. I have added a few of his works and a few reviews of them. Old versions of the article have lots more of his work. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep Lacks in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. But my impression from the material and sources that wp:notability is likely. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - journalists by their nature write more articles (and books) than are written about them, and with 23 years at the BBC he ought to qualify for notability as a professional journalist in the public eye. However the following should be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR:

http://hnn.us/node/141328 History News Network: Marjorie Cohn's Review of 'Breeding Ground'. "Tripathi’s excellent work ends with a call to replace the military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan with development, reconciliation, and reconstruction." "Breeding Ground makes a significant contribution toward understanding the origins and triggers of terrorism. Tripathi traces the development of a ‘culture of violence’ in Afghanistan—largely due to resistance against foreign invasion—from the “U.S.-led proxy war” against the USSR to the current U.S. war."

http://thisishell.net/tag/deepak-tripathi/#.TsKtlFYg5VI ThisIsHell.net Podcast 23 July 2011

http://www.jofr.org/author/deepak-tripathi/#.TsKuH1Yg5VI Journal of Foreign Relations (14 different articles by Tripathi)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19283 Global Researcher: Ramzy Baroud's Review of 'Overcoming The Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan'. "While reputable author and world renowned journalist Deepak Tripathi agrees with this grim view, he doesn’t think all is lost. He believes that there is still a chance, an opportunity even to redress the injustice and reverse the terrible mistakes that were made. A compelling writer and a meticulous researcher, Tripathi’s work is both gripping and comprehensive. His latest book, Overcoming The Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan serves as a glaring reminder of what military power can do when it goes unchecked, and when it is combined with religious fanaticism or misguided political ideology."

Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, with 3 significant books with good publishers, and substantial reviews, which are the usual 3rd party sources for authors. 14 articles in good journals . That's sufficient demonstration that 3rd parties--the publishers, and especially the referees and editors of that journal, find him notable . The quotation given just above, which is a review not a blurb, proves it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment With the sources given above, the article should be easy to improve to address the concern I raised in the nomination. Fæ (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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.