Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarun Anand


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarun Anand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN person. The award doesn't have any GHits, and the only real significant coverage is the NYT article. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in cited sources:, . ~Kvng (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile and also WP:BLP1E. The New York Times article is no doubt significant coverage. But this is trivial coverage where they have quoted the subject. And apart from these 2, there is literally no other coverage of the subject. This does not pass GNG at all. In addition, this is essentially BLP1E as both mention he subject in context of the company. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable people who are the founders of a non-notable company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the listed 2 sources are quite unconvincing attempts at making this seem actually notable....when it is not, there's nothing at all suggestive of the needed independent notability and thus should've been deleted as PROD. SwisterTwister   talk  22:49, 12 July 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.