Deletion of Rohit Aggarwala

Comment: Please see  for the basic due diligence before an AfD. https://www.nysun.com/new-york/planner-behind-bloombergs-planyc/55342/ Here is a 2,500 word profile of Aggarwala. StreetsBlog NYC has a https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2010/04/01/planyc-mastermind-rohit-aggarwala-leaving-nyc/ four-part interview totaling 4600 words. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/06/04/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-toronto-future-city-interview-rohit-aggarwala/ Another interview running 3,900 words. There are dozens of stories about a variety of events and topics that report Aggarwala playing a significant role. So the subject has received coverage in multiple independent sources where he is the primary subject, and has played a prominent role in several events and issues spaning a long period of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Fails . As for GNG, there are some low-key interviews but that's pretty borderline, and they are in very niche outlets. Nothing else, coverage wise or just plain  wise, suggest he on the right side of borderline. And the entry still reads and looks like a low quality paid-for  like bio
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NBIO||WP:VANITY)

Comment: Interviews are not completely inadmissible as Wikipedia sourcing — they can absolutely be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts in an article that already has a strong -passing mix of other sources ''besides'' the interviews — but they are not in and of themselves notability-clinching sources if they ''are'' the ''best'' sources on offer, because people do not get to talk ''themselves'' into Wikipedia if they have virtually no third-party journalism being written about them in the third-person by other people. And yes, BeneNota is also ''correct'' that in order to count as support for notability, one of the things a media outlet has to have is an ''established reputation'' as a reliable and trustworthy source — and ''another'' thing it has to have is a ''named masthead'' of its editorial chain of command, which is something I'm simply not finding on the ''New York Sun'' website at all. Web media startups are ''not'' always accorded equal value as reliable sources — coverage in a little-known community hyperlocal does ''not'' count for nearly as much as coverage in a major general-market daily like ''The New York Times'' would. So the interviews and the ''New York Sun'' would be fine as additional sources ''if'' the rest of the sourcing around them were ''better'' than it is, but they don't ''make'' him notable all by themselves if they ''are'' the ''best'' sources on offer. And everything else here is either a |primary source that does not count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of something or someone else — which means that none of this is good enough. GNG is ''not'' just "count up the footnotes and keep everything and everyone that meets or exceeds two media hits": it also tests for the ''depth'', ''range'', ''quality'' and ''context'' of the coverage, not just the raw number of footnotes present, so Q&A interviews and small community hyperlocals are not enough in and of themselves
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)