Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CP Gurnani


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Courcelles (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

CP Gurnani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio... this is the CEO. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Um...no reason for deletion in the nomination, the article looks sound, though the references still have to be in-lined. From what I see, it looks fine as an article. Silver  seren C 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - He has had good coverage in Indian financial media. Keep this one but delete all other Mahindra Satyam executive articles spoke too soon, i am going through them one by one.. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It really depends on if news sources can be dug up on them. I don't think it's right to say that anyone else in the company that has an article is non-notable unless they are individually looked at, which is what the nomination seems to be insinuating. Silver  seren C 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I use Twinkle and it doesn't XFD multiple articles at once, or I'd have put them all in one. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.