Deletion of Vinod Jose

Comment: Having failed myself to find much beyond his own journalism when I edited the article and talk page prior to this nomination, I've been impressed by what Crtew has turned up since this AfD started. I lean more to the deletionist view when it comes to AfDs generally but there is enough present now to verify that this person is notable in his own right. I've watched the article develop since the nomination and while some sources that are now shown are better than others, the overall effect is compelling.  is satisfied because of things such as the number of times his major stories have been quoted but, even if people argued otherwise, that guideline does not trump . My suspicion is that there may well be more out there in non-English sources and this is the only reason why I did not nominate the thing for deletion when I did my own work on it. Crtew deserves a very substantial pat on the back for their efforts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: essentially per . Significant secondary source coverage is sufficiently demonstrated. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Not a notable journalist. Article fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Checked around for any independent reports, couldn't find any. Clearly fails . Special:Contributions/122.176.146.47|122.176.146.47
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)