Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Kant Munjal

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kant Munjal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough independent sources in reliable publications to establish WP:GNG. Most of the sources have him saying something in quotes. Not enough for WP:BASIC either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are references which are enough for notability. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and many more. Kirtos67 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysing sources pointed above. [6] Primary source. [7] - Interview and not independent. [8] - Written by himself only. So primary. The book he has written can give home some leverage at WP:Creative but we will have to dig more on that. [9] Just a quote and some opinions so not significant. [10] a podcast interview. Not independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are simply too many references about him. if you find some defects in references pointed out by me, others can be cited as JeanPaulMontmartre has done. Kirtos67 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NBIO, none of the sources in the article are independent of the subject. There are some independent sources available regarding his book but not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current article is short on citations, independent sources can easily be found in reliable newspapers. Eg this Livemint report carries an in-depth profile, Indian Express story, Wall Street Journal piece about top-paid executives. Google search is throwing up many more links, someone should add these in and expand it. As wisdom goes, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm being bold and relisting this once more time - can anyone else take a look?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is notable and probably merits a keep. But the thought of a editor with an obvious conflict of interest getting his way at the behest of hard working volunteer editors is probably the reason why more participation is not seen in this discussion.Jupitus Smart 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.