Deletion of Gaurav Taneja

Comment: the person is a well known YouTube celebrity and fitness trainer has many  references over the web
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: he is notable YouTubers having two channels with more than million subscribers and passes  as there are some reliable sources used
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Ignoring the many  !votes above, I am convinced that apart from AirAsia incident, there is nothing notable about the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: The keeps here are baseless. The "attention" he's getting from media are from fake black hat SEO sources disguised as legitimate outlets, including Deccan Chronicle which has a less than stellar reputation for churnalism. I'll detail each source below. Not only are the sources poor, but even the legitimate ones are just . He's not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Passes . He is getting a lot of media coverage currently after highlighting AirAsia safety issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: He bravely took a stand against a major airline which received necessary media coverage. Passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ENT)

Comment: Per reasons above. He has received some coverage and the sources indicated in the article are reliable. The article easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Most sources online seem to mention the subject only in connection with his recent exposé about the airline he used to work for, but other than that, he doesn't seem to have any significant notability. Seems like an example of . The relevant notability guideline, I believe, is , and the subject clearly doesn't qualify. The guideline is unambiguous; the person in question must have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." The guideline does mention a few other criteria for general entertainers, but they are not relevant here. It's also worth noting , which although is not a binding policy or guideline, does contain helpful information, including: "The subscriber count on the subject's YouTube channel is considered a primary source and is also subject to change (there's nothing to guarantee that the x million subscribers might all suddenly unsubscribe, even though that may seem far-fetched). So editors like to see the subscriber count mentioned by a secondary source, which comes with the advantage of being a point-in-time record of that count." However, I have not been able to find |reliable sources that document the subject's subscriber count, which is indicative of a lack of notability. The few subscriber counts I have found for him are either self published, or are tabloid news articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ENT||WP:NYOUTUBE||WP:RS)