Deletion of Anoop Sasikumar

Comment: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for |lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be '''eligible for |soft deletion''' at the end of its 7-day listing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM||WP:SOFTDELETE)

Comment: I am mindful of the possible systemic bias here and would be willing to change my !vote if it is shown that  exists in Malayalam, but there is no actual claim to notability in the article, nor have I been able to find any independent coverage at all of the person or his books in reliable secondary sources per . The individual in question is an academic who very clearly does not meet , and an author. I do not see how he would meet  either; the "DC Books Literary Award" is not a notable award, and being nominated for that does not make an author notable. Barring any indications that  #3 is met, it looks like it might just be |too soon for an article about this person.  {{u|Tachs}} mentions Google hits – could you give some examples of reliable sources (that is, links to the sources themselves) that you found?  Anything written ''by'' the person himself is irrelevant here (including any academic papers found through GScholar), as is Goodreads, and anything from book sellers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:NPROF||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Unless SIGCOV is discovered this subject does not meet the current criteria for retention/inclusion as laid out in . SNG's are fine for article creation. The article should and will be tested against GNG criteria. It does not pass this criteria as it currently stands
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . From the sources provided above, his books seem to have been the subject of multiple independent reviews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: No secondary sources included. Good bibliography section, but I only see primary sources. If the subject is notable it should have at least some secondary sources to back it up, if this is subject to change during the consensus, I will change my vote per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)