Deletion of Santosh Sharma (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm thinking a good guideline to use, here, is whether Mr. Sharma has more than one book published.  At this time, he has one - Next What's In.  If he, as a businessman, can do something that is remarkably significant outside of general economic improvement (and for that, he'd have to basically flip over the economy of his general area), or get some time to publish another book, then it would be a good case to keep - but unfortunately, it may just be |a little bit too soon for Mr. Sharma to be here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: then redirect to book, per . Non-notable accountant who wrote a book of dubious notability. Insufficient sourcing to support an article on this subject and a reasonable search doesn't improve that situation (based on search, apparently a common name for either sex). Anything relevant can be merged into the book. If and when the subject can muster sources superior to the shallow coverage presented, then we could reconsider
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have  been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the  guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this guideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states ,  Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt.  The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out , you should be very familiar with by now.  Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case.  What ''will'' help is if you can alter the article in such a way to ''demonstrate notability of this independently of the book''.  The end.  In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication.  That, alone, will change our minds
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)