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 delete. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article looks like a blog, lacks clarity, notability and is full of primary sources. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article lacks third party sources! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Most of the present set of references are either primary or weak and unreliable, and some of the content is still unreferenced. One of the refs redirects to a paid content website (Contentsutra.com --> paidcontent.org). References shedding light on his employers do not count; notability can not be inherited. Rohini (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2013 (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.