Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev Randhawa


 * 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 delete. Only two people argued to keep.

One, is a WP:SPA who created this article, which doesn't disqualify him from commenting, but not really a dispassionate viewpoint. In any case, the user asserted the existence of sources, but didn't actually supply any.

The other keeper did provide two sources (thank you), but looking at them, both are more about the company than the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dev Randhawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My searches have found links at News and Highbeam, but nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability including from the company. I should note I PROD this but it was removed with no explanations at all. SwisterTwister  talk  00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Firstly I'd like to apologise for not explaining the removal of the PROD - this was an oversight on my part and for this I apologise. In regards to the proposal for deletion, I'd like to know what you would consider to be solid independent notability in regards to links and sources. I will be happy to provide more appropriate links if possible, if this is something you'd be happy to receive. In regards to an argument for keeping the profile, I'd like to cite [| WP:ANYBIO] and point out that the subject has received several awards and nominations for his role in his respective field. HomersDoh (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J bh  Talk  14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as appears to be a notable company from a quick search (but does not have its own article) and CEO in question earned significant award from notable journal The Northern Miner, as well as an interview from an independent source. Needs improvement, but a search reveals a decent number of sources discussing him in a non-trivial manner. Appable (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, this is a case where the company is more notable than the CEO and since we are voting about the person (not the company), I vote delete. There are multiple sources focusing on the company ,. When I tried to look for sources for the individual, I couldn't find any which discusses him in detail. I did find a few interviews and many quotes, but every single one of them was in the context of the company. I am convinced that the subject is not independently notable for his own article. The awards which the subject has won seem to be awarded by Canadian trade journals in this area. I am not convinced that the awards are very significant in this case - for one I expect to see some secondary citations about the awards. In addition, the EY awards for which the subject was nominated seems to be in context of the company as well - there is a co-nomination along with him for the same company. Overall, I feel while the company is notable, the article subject is not and this article should be deleted. I wouldn't object is someone creates an article about the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a new article about the company. Our inclusion rules for businesspeople do not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every CEO of a notable company — the CEO himself has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in his own right, not merely mentioned in coverage of the company, to get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current Keep votes are still basically acknowledging the current questionability and thus is at least best deleted for now until and whenever a better article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  18:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is now per Bearcat. Maybe relisting, improving while creating a Fission Corp-article too will make me strike out my vote. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2016 (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.