Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Kedia


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Vijay Kedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not establish third-party notability. Even if everything said is true, it doesn't warrant an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) *delete routine coverage and nothing links to this, which is a good indicator of lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Akanksha Aggarwal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * change to keep based on indepth sources found. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve there's now evidence of sufficiently in-depth coverage in WP:RS including The Economic Times, Daily News and Analysis, Business Standard, etc. I personally think most stockbrokers are a bunch of useless parasites at best, but that's neither here nor there. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO per User:Akanksha Aggarwal; clearly WP:UPE and this article is doubtless part of their somewhat blatant 'specialised in social media which created brand identity using social media' for this particular client. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  18:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Just barely passes the general notability guideline, in my view. DES (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and publish Sufficient in-depth coverage in WP:RS including The Economic Times, Daily News and Analysis, Business Standard, Business World etc has been provided. In case of any more feedback please do share. thanks User: Akanksha AggarwalAkanksha Aggarwal (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has received significant coverage. See;
 * Business Standard
 * Daily News and Analysis
 * The Economic Times
 * The Economic Times
 * Mint
 * Daily News and Analysis
 * All these publications are reliable sources. Checking them will show that the subject passes WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 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.