Deletion of Rashmi Singh (author) (2nd nomination)

Comment: as failing . As was discussed in the previous AFD the coverage in the two nominally reliable sources (the interview in http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120926/jsp/bihar/story_16019641.jsp#.UGUg5q53DIVl Telegraph India and the one book review in http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=24&sectid=edid%3D&edlabel=ETKM&mydateHid=01-07-2011&pubname=Economic+Times+-+Kolkata+-+People&edname&articleid=Ar02402&publabel=ET Economic Times) are insufficient to establish that the subject is "regarded as an important figure" in literature or "created, ..., a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources cited in the current version of the article are completely unreliable and seem to be amongst the suite of websites that have cropped up in India recently exclusively to ''promote'' authors, apparently in exchange of payment (aside: this phenomenon seems to parallel the http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full fake "open access" journals that have also bloomed in India recently). I think AFD and AFC regulars should be aware of this, so I'll outline a few suspicious signs below
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHORS)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The sources are of sufficient quality and number to pass  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: The coverages are substantial and enough  No Reason to delete when  her latest work is also termed 'dintinct' and 'different' and has been upheld for dealing with the Kingdoms of South India by Oneindia.in  -which no other author probably has done till yet. South Indian kings and the details of their kingdoms  have been very first time woven into fiction
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: by reason of CSD#G4 from previous discussion as the article is not sufficiently improved and unimproved from the form it was when it was originally deleted.  The proper forum for appeal to the original deletion was at  not a second creation of the same piece
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)