Deletion of Gaur Gopal Das (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails  / 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: after some careful consideration. His talks are not notable (again I refer to my rationale for that in the previous AfD - I know that had very low participation but it seems like a waste of time to repeat my arguments, which are identical). There is no |significant coverage in independent sources. And I've arrived at the opinion that the honorary doctorate doesn't confer notability on its own given the fact that the awarding institution is not allowed to call itself a university, and as Britishfinance points out, in almost all cases where a honoris causa doctorate is notable, the person receiving it was already notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: probably. I see a lot of coverage of his talks - not press releases, but reports with bylines in multiple, reliable, independent newspapers, including the ''Times of India'' - coverage which is not currently in the article. The previous AfD ran for only one week, and had 2 delete votes (including the Nom), and one keep, and there is very little discussion in it, and none that is relevant to the question of significant coverage of his talks (rather than reliable sources for whether he spoke in the UK parliament and Google head office). I would say that he meets , and perhaps  #3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: fails , not a notable subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Please read the above carefully.  Any claim of notability that this charachter has (as per the first AfD) is either faked (that he "addressed the UK parliment"), or not from an  (there are plenlty of follower blogs/facebook junk), or not relevant to WP notability (e.g. giving a talk to a group in Google, which no RS reported on).  There is a WP:SOCK element here and "Keep" votes based on ILIKEIT (or contrived interpritations of NAUTHOR) vs. . BLPs with a strong COI/PROMO aspect should not be "contrived" cases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PAG)