Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Raja (2nd nomination)

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. AKRadecki 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaurav Raja

Gaurav Raja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"This article is worthless. The kid held the record for only 6 months and then lost it. He received moderate press coverage at the time, but no longer seems to be of any importance whatsoever. There's simply no reason to have an article on every single person who was the subject of two or three newspaper articles. I've been featured in dozens of articles in my local paper over the years, but no one would consider me notable. The appearance on the Today Show might make him notable but it only lasted a few seconds and the Today Show will recognize people for a similar amount of time on their one-hundredth birthday. Similarly, most people probably get an article in their local paper when they turn 100. So unless we want an article on every person to turn 100, we shouldn't have an article on this kid." Please note that the preceding reasoning is not mine. It comes from an anon who attempted to prod the article. Anons can not create pages, therefore, I have taken the liberty of filling out this deletion nomination. I fully concur with the above reasoning and I would like to add that I have made the only edit to the page other than disambiguation fixes since September 2006. It's simply not notable Cool3 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete North American record is nothing notable. World record maybe. Still something interesting to learn about however. --Whstchy 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I would think that North American record would be of minor notability -- and like many others I generally believe notability is permanent. Several reliable sources can be found; however, I'm not too confident that this article could easily be expanded beyond what it is now. I could be wrong about that though, so I'm going with a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Moderate delete I'm not sure there's much notability for memorizing pi to any number of digits, and while it may get some minor fluff coverage, I doubt it's ever substantial. Should he ever be notable for something else, this can be covered then. Or is the coverage more substantial than it seems? I dunno. Maybe we should have an article on pi memorization? FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think the article just suggested above is a good idea, because there is some literature on other people also.DGG 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on Piphilology which is essentially the same thing. Reading that article, I don't even see anywhere that a mention of Gaurav Raja would fit. It seems that only the very top memorizers need to be included. Honestly, the fact that Raja doesn't merit mention in the article on his own discipline (if you will) says to me that he isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

• Redirect into Piphilology. Perhaps a section to list record holders would be appropriate. KrakatoaKatie 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per KrakatoaKatie.Mmoneypenny 20:29, 27 May 2007 (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.