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 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Kotecha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I see no evidence that this person meets WP:NAUTHOR. The reviews his works have received aren't from reliable sources or from the standard major sources we usually use to judge notability of authors/their work. I can find no independent coverage of him that would otherwise satisfy any other criteria and the fact that he's written for notable publications is probably great for his resume but ultimately irrelevant in establishing his notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Article Author) Note: I disagree with the above. This author clearly meets "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." If you would like specific examples where he does this in his second novel, The Switch, then examples need to be included from the reviews written by notable poets and critics in the various literary organizations used to cite this page.

Regarding his writing and criticism for notable publications...this is exactly what an art and culture critic does: "express or analyze the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art." I don't think it should be undermined by a Wikipedia editor's ignorance of the literary (or any cultural) sphere and basis that cultural spheres rely on meritocracy (i.e. "for his resume") - because they don't. Again, if you are looking for specific examples of "merits and faults," otherwise known as opinions and perspectives, then I agree that direct examples should be included. Please note that he is referenced in various artist's and writer's Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frutti xperiment (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and question. Frutti_xperiment, I'm unclear what is meant in this case by "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." I don't see significant coverage for either the writer or whatever "new concept, theory, or technique" he created; I'm intrigued by what is meant by that. The only notable poetry/cultural journal cited in the article is the The Brooklyn Rail, which could be one piece of evidence towards notability. The others, while reliable sources, are just plain review journals and aren't avant garde. Please ping me as to what else you can find. Can you prove this writer has done something new? Bearian (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete article suggests a typical author. No indication of notability per nom. Graywalls (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks promotional - Jay (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2019 (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.