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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Rehan Yar Khan

Rehan Yar Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I've checked the notability guidelines and there's nothing in it that says that this person is non-notable. The person has appeared frequently on print, tv, news media to confirm notability, please check references on the article itself. Please explain why non-notable? Veejs7er ( talk) 07:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - based on a quick review of the sources, this one seems notable. Some of the other stubs nominated today by Sportsfan 1234 are flotsam, but this seems to be the one that is trying to carry them away. The articles appear to be good sources that actually mention this person in their headlines. Whether they are significant is debatable, but, again, based on my cursory review, it seems to be good. Bearian ( talk) 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the sources are all in fact clear business announcements, listings, mentions and all in between and they actually show the same consistency in wording and style, showing only one person authored it and that's the PR itself, it's clear that's why this existed too since there's nothing satisfying our policies either. "Whether they are significant" is debatable because they're from websites known for willingly publishing PR hence unconvincing, and our policies never classify articles as notable simply by "good sources" because then there's the important matter of actual notability, one of which here is not sourced by anything else but clear business PR hence deletion. To answer the first commenter's quote above, WP:NOT is the applicable policy here because we're not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - person is highly cited by several good sources. WP:BLP1E does not apply as sources are varied articles and contexts over period of time. WP:NOT for PR would be meaningful for a business or a product. The sources are high quality and would only cite a substantially notable person on various events and topics. Neozucker ( talk) 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Neozucker ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note to administrators the above account has almost no edits outside this discussion. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note to Administrators: I sincerely believe that the person is notable especially in the Indian context as the person is known for important contributions to the Indian startup ecosystem. From making one of India's best known angel investments which led to the cascade of startup activity in India to launching India's first and largest domestic venture capital firm, which culturally changed India's risk capital landscape. ^[1]. Just to give some examples to elucidate my point better: the person is better known and notable for contributions made in India than Fred Wilson and Shervin Pishevar are known in the Unites States. All of these are cited by high quality sources as referenced in the article. For example The economic times is the most significant read business news source in India and The Times of India is the world's largest read daily apart from coverage in other renowned news sources like Forbes etc. as mentioned in the sources. The intent of these sources and the article is not PR but genuine coverage for important personal contributions to the Indian Ecosystem. If PR was the intent, the coverages and the article would focus on the businesses run by the person rather that the achievements. Neozucker ( talk) 08:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I agree with SwisterTwister's analysis of the sources - I do not think this constitutes significant coverage, and in fact there is nothing in the article that indicates that this is anything other than a run-of-the mill businessperson with access to a good PR department. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unfortunately the sources here are written in the same way as if they had been actual press releases, so they cannot count as reliable sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 28 January 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.