Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Singh Dhillon

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Singh Dhillon[edit]

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

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

I don't see that this rich man meets our notability requirements. He gets two mentions on GBooks, a handful on GNews. Where is the in-depth coverage that would enable us to write a better article about him than the present poor stub? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – He has been amply covered by the mainstream media in India and Canada, but most of that coverage seems like in the form of interviews (with seemingly inadequate independent coverage), e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. But a few articles seem to have decent amount of independent coverage, such as this one of The Sunday Guardian. Anyway, this perception of mine is based on a cursory search, and will look again at this in a day or two. BTW, is anyone familiar with this magazine? - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Justlettersandnumbers, SyndicaterUI78, and NitinMlk: Please take another look. I have expanded the article with multiple references, and it is now a decently referenced short article about a person who is clearly notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I looked the article and find it's could remain,no significant issue I saw in main Article.Forest90 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2019 (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.