Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Tibrewal

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. ✗plicit 14:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Tibrewal

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pankaj Tibrewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article’s sourcing consists mainly of brief mentions, rankings, and routine coverage in business publications. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – From the set of sources there is on threshold to establishes WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – In my view, the subject appears to be a notable fund manager with numerous sources that are non-routine providing significant coverage, which should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Normally we can outright dismiss these articles because they result from paid trade journals which lack independence. This one has some better coverage in more clearly independent publications like The Economic Times. The sourcing is puffery but the publications are respectable. So... reluctantly keep.4meter4 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2025 (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.