Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakhan Gusain

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakhan Gusain

Article for a non-notable person, apparently written by the subject. Article was prodded, but the author deleted both the prod AND what assertions of notability there were (namely that he had a teaching job in John Hopkins Uni), which is why I'm AfDing what looks like a speedy-able article -- Aim Here 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:AUTO. 85 unique ghits. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn per nom. Very brief article does not even try to assert any notability. He's doing great on RateMyProfessor.com, though. Kuru ^talk 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:AUTO. Nothing of any encyclopedic value here, just blatant self-promotion. Akira 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:Vanity all refer.  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I have to think that the guy thought he was writing a userpage. At least I hope he did. 204.69.40.7 14:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yep, vanity. He can put the single sentence back pretty easily, though. ProhibitOnions 20:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, vanity, vanity. Oliver Keenan 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all Evillan 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment John Hopkins is good enough that being a professor is automatically notable, but he doesn't seem to be a professor. Its best to delete the one sentence version though. JeffBurdges 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with JeffBurdges that being a prof at Johns Hopkins makes one notable (see WP:PROFTEST for guidelines in progress), but in this case... the guy wasn't claiming to even be a prof, and he's not even on the faculty list: [1]. The prior version claimed he was widely published, which would be sufficient... but I couldn't find anything on google scholar, nor even a home page, so I can't verify it. Mangojuice 19:50, 23 March 2006 (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.