Deletion of Bikram Grewal

Comment: And Mukerjee, please don't despair. One thing to remember is that this has nothing at all to do with what any of us thinks of you, nor of what we think of Bikram as a person or a birdwatcher. It has only to do with what we think of Bikram's notability. And frankly, I commend you for |being bold and writing a stub for an author you have a little familiarity with. Collaboration (which successful wiki editing is) is a very hard task, especially when it is of the more organic kind (vice structured). It takes significant energy to continue. Taking short and long breaks to rebuild those energies and maintain an interest are important
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: interviews published at reliable independent venues ''do'' establish notability, since they are in-depth coverage and they have been reviewed by the editorial policies of the third-party media that published them. These references by two independent sources are enough to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Actually, Shyamal, if you know something of the subject's notability, then please don't recuse yourself. It's not forbidden to write about something you know about; it is only forbidden to use your own brain as a reference. The notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. If WP:Scholar doesn't adequately cover all types of scholars, we can do one of three things: either take the issue to the people (which I think AfD is a fine start for that in some regards, although a wider audience should be sought), |be bold and make new guidelines to fit the situation that works with (and not against) the existing guidelines, or drop back 10 yards and punt this to  (and sue me for mixing bird watching and football playing...). What could the guidelines be for guidebook writers such that it would be consistent with GNG and WP:Scholar? Would Bikram fail or pass those guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:GNG)