Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girish Jhunjhnuwala

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, defaults to keep. Nakon 01:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Jhunjhnuwala

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

Unsorted. No evidence of any special notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are a couple of profiles not in the article: NYT and [1]. He seems to be quoted fairly often in the news, being in a highly quoted industry like hospitality. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More references added from authentic websites :

I have included more references in the article, from various news and government websites like: [2] [3] hope these provide sufficient evidence of special notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny.mosaic (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now has 4 independent sources, vs. only 1 when it was nominated. With these new sources I think it now has enough to pass GNG. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2015 (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.