Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev 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 delete. Sandstein 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Agarwal

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails GNG.Promo-article filled with PR sources and trivial listing(s). Winged Blades^Godric 09:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article clearly meets GNG. (1) Sources meet the "significant coverage" guidelines. There are multiple, widely circulated sources including The Seattle Times, Inc. magazine, and the Puget Sound Business Journal. These were all independently authored articles with no ties to the subject. (2) Alternative sources include the Penguin Random House website, the largest book publisher in the world. (3) Subject was referenced as a notable authority in multiple articles (BBC, The Seattle Times) as founding one of the first software startups in the Seattle region to use an international workforce for a 24 hour per day business cycle. If the article needs more clarification on why these matters are significant, I'm happy to provide it.Lazerquick (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets notability guidelines. Author of 2 books by leading publisher, Penguin. XYZ1001 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reworked article to better meet GNG. Addressed issues with sources. Please let me know if you have more suggested edits to make this article suitable for approval. Thank you.~~ Lazerquick (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. MT Train^Discuss 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rajeev Agarwal is a notable entrepreneur. His company has been on the Inc. 5000 list nine times. Out of more than 20 thousand companies have made it onto the list, only 1% of those companies keep sustained growth to be listed on the list nine or more times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to the AFD closing editor: ~~The above three accounts that have voted keep are no more than 10 days old. MT Train^Discuss 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)~~ The accounts XYZ1001 and Lazerquick are just around 10 days old. MT Train^Discuss 06:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion relevant to the article. As per the AfD rules, this discussion is supposed to stay on topic and suggest specific issues that need to be improved in the article. The WP:FIXIT guideline states that we need to work on fixing the specific issues. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources to show that this is notable topic, so if this is a matter of specific concerns, let's address those.Lazerquick (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MT Train, I don't know about other accounts, but I'm sure that my account is not less than 10 days old. Can you provide evidence to support your statement? Also, please stay on the topic of this discussion. Have you read Mr. Agarwal's two books? Personally, I've found many useful advice from these two books. 172.58.40.248 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgee235 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, is close to a A7 candidate, and source searching did not bring up anything further to add. Sam Sailor 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 9 January 2018 (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.