Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chintapalli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Agree that subject is non-notable; also, newspaper clippings normally aren't acceptable because a) they can be altered and b) they're copyright violations if uploaded. So, due to lack of sourcing, I'm calling this a delete. If notability improves in the future, feel free to make it again. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chintapalli

Chintapalli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

‎Chintapalli DavidRaju is the same thing, and it was also rejected at RfC. Enigma msg! 06:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. fails WP:BIO. also need to delete Chintapalli David Raju. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Circular bin, not even the 1st ranked pi memorizer in India would convince me of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly formatted, no sourced assertion of notability, an admin may also want to check out Chintapalli David Raju, currently up for speedy per A7. Cirt (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, et al. I reformatted the (two!) leads, because lead formatting is one of my pet peeves - but, looking at the material, this isn't a salvageable article. If there are published works that refer to the subject or the subject's work, maybe there's an article in there somewhere. As it stands, however, there is no evidence to suggest notability. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being 42nd on this ranking of π memorizers isn't particularly impressive, particularly given the short length of the list (150 entries). None of the other statements really add up to anything, either - working as a college lecturer isn't notable; neither is having attempted to enter a mathematics competition. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete while the view that that "The concept of Death is no more compulsion if the value of Pi can be calculated completely." is facsinating, I don't see any grounds for a claim of notability. Failing evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, I think this unreferenced bio ought to be divided by zero. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete very non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something more can be said that would explain why he's notable. The pronouncement about "the concept of Death" is not within the professional competence of a mathematician. If some noteworthy mathematical theorems were discovered by this person, then that should be added to the article and then it should probably be kept. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Include this page.I'm giving three reasons:

First reason is that it's some what inspirative to MATHEMATICS students.It is evident by the article that he has passion for Mathematics.Certainly, not deleting of this page leads to create more Mathematicians in the hope of getting this sort of appreciation.It is sure that recognition plays key role in improving faculty.

Second reason is that there are articles about the persons who have the same sort of skills.Example,Rajan Mahadevan...

Third reason is that there are so many articles about the persons who are less notable and having no significant web links.But this article has noteworthy web links.Example,http://www.pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/continent/asia.html. By clicking this link one can check the facts in this article.So please keep on this article.

--Ganitha (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP ON THIS PAGE :By not deleting this article,those two amazing statements will be explained in detail.--Sathyam is this (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • note to closing admin - Sathyam is this is a WP:SPA and Ganitha has only contributed to this AfD and the article on the village that Chintapalli comes from. I suspect both these editors may be involved with the subject? So I'm going with WP:ABF. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. The two voting against delete appear to be sockpuppets. Enigma msg! 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

REASON OR REGION?What if the votes were from there,if the reasons are noteworthy?--202.63.100.162 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IS REASON MORE IMPORTANT THAN REGION? My opinion is that the link http://www.pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/continent/asia.html it self is certifiable.At least,please respect PI WORLD RANKING ORGANIZATION,GERMANY--Ganitha (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


To support to the article

Local news paper cliping about Chintapalli
Image:Notable1.jpg

--Abcdabcaba (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


NOTEWORTHY OR NOT WORTHY?

Local news paper cliping about Chintapalli
Image:Notable3.jpg
--59.93.123.52 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To support the Notability,I'm uploading these images

Local news paper cliping about Chintapalli
Image:Notable4.jpg

--Facttruthtrue (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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.