Deletion of Rajat Suri

Comment: No pass of rof or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: part of a  campaign that also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E la Carte. No indications of notability or significance per available sources; just a businessman going about his business
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: Wikipedia guidelines state that anyone may !vote , so unfair to discriminate based on this and not on the merits of the facts.  The WSJ article helps to establish the subject as notable within the business world - it is not a personal blog, but an essay published in a well-known mainstream business paper on how to perform as a new business leader, which shows industry influence, a |criterion for notability.  The other new articles that were added do establish diverse valid secondary sources that clearly independently verified facts before writing the article, including Fast Company, GigaOm and others. These are manifestly not press releases and are written by specialized journalists in the field
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Fails . Notability is not inherited, most sources are in relation to the company "E la Carte" and of those that mention Rajat, they are press releases or advertorials on behalf of the company. There is no evidence that Rajat is notable in his own right
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: The "Keep" !vote above is from an account that was created with the sole purpose of editing the topic article and !voting here. Nevertheless. From what I can see, none the sources Randor5602 added meet the criteria for establishing notability. You added the WSJ article but it is a blog, so fails as blogs are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The Fox Business source is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject since there's nothing to indication that the "facts" were independently verified and not just repeated. The gigaom article suffers the same way. Then you've put in a section on E la Carte and referenced a bunch of articles that are actually about the company but where Rajat might be mentioned or provide a quote. These articles are not intellectually independent, notability is not inherited, they're not in-depth and therefore fail the |criteria for establishing notability (the techcrunch article, the mashable article, the thefamuanonline article, usatoday article, bizjournals article, and fastcompany article). Then you've done the same thing for a previous business of Rajat's called Zimride by adding in references to articles that are about zimride and not about Rajat
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)