Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diwan Rahul Nanda


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Diwan Rahul Nanda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. Previously prodded by User:discospinster. Most sources are routine buisness coverage of some companies he is involved in. He won some awards that don't seem to confer notability. Successful businessperson, sure, but encyclopedic? I think not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick check for additional sources brings up these -    - which in conjuction with the sources in the current article clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are heavily based on interview/PR materials; those Indian newspapers have really low standards, just a step above PR reporting. Third source mentions him in passing, and fourth, not at all. I am not impressed by those new sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The fourth does mention him - search. It isn't all interviews. Regarding Indian journalism standards - I won't argue, however Economic Times (which is why I selected it) is relatively high inside the Indian sphere. If you're going to throw out all Indian sources - there's a whole lot of Afds coming. Nanda has ongoing coverage - the article is with sources mostly up to 2011 - The sources I provided arc up to 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, subject just isn't notable. Ifnord (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2017 (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.