Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varun Agarwal

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. After being relisted twice, and multiple sources existing, no consensus has been reached. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Agarwal

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Agarwal's article looks like an advertisement & promotion page of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR online and not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good PR person from India rather than entrepreneur and not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Significant media coverage from mainstream media houses, clearly makes him pass WP:notability guidelines,GNG.

ATTENTION: I just checked the history of user User:Vinay089, who merely have any positive contribution to Wikipedia. This account seems to be sock, and created solely with purpose of deleting notable articles. (The account Vinay089 is under sockpupet investigation, Here) He nominates the article for deletion even without informing the creator of page (He doesn't leave notification on talk page). The user merely aware about Wikipedia's policy. One more important thing which should be consider, he nominates the article and copy paste same reason in every in each and every AFD. You may check the list of article he nominated and the given reason.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the SPI was rejected and the topic's notability is a separate issue from the nominator. Frequent nomination of similar articles with similar, or even exactly the same, arguments have no bearing on article subject notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough news media coverage. Kvs90bc (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite promotional tone, the coverage in The Hindu, India Times and India Today is all significant and (unless anyone can refute those articles in particular) and in WP:RS. Passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional tone + borderline notability should equal deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the references are all profile pieces, rather than news pieces. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (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.