Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K L Dhingra

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K L Dhingra

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

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mostly a résumé, written in a highly promotional, that fails to establish subject's notability. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A CV sourced only to routine announcements, which demonstrates that the subject has had jobs but fails to establish any rationale for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't even come close to passing GNG. In addition, there is nothing to show that the subject is independently notable of his associations with the organisations/companies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept at Wikipedia. The person is a philanthropist as well as a notable businessman. There are certainly more reliable sources cited in the article than just a CV. The article passes GNG because there is significant coverage in several kinds of reliable sources that are independent of the person the article tells about. Thank you. Donald1659 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show some of the reliable sources where the subject is covered in detail? I can see none. Note that the subject must also be independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:BURDEN is on the keep !voter to demonstrate notability, not make a claim of notability. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't find anything. They immediately fail WP:SIGCOV and "there must be sources" is an WP:ATA. Mkdw ^talk 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others mentioned, the notability outside of association is not established, plus the tone reads too promotional currently and is in danger of leaving nothing behind if removed. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:18, 11 August 2016 (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.