Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrutha Anand


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Amrutha Anand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this via a request at WP:REFUND where the article's author (Cvjayanthy) was arguing for its inclusion, as it was tagged with a speedy A7. There was an assertion of notability so I'm taking this to AfD. The argument for notability is essentially that while Miss Anand is registered as holding a record in the Limca Book of Records, I have no real way of telling whether or not this is a world record, national record, or so on. I'm also unfamiliar with the LBoR, so I don't really know how thorough or official they are, although they do seem to be India's equivalent to the Guiness Book of World Records. The other record outlets don't entirely appear to be the sort that Wikipedia would consider to be usable as far as notability purposes go and I don't really see This Yoga as being a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines either. Now there is a link to a video here and while the video looks like it's a potential copyright violation, it does show that there was some media coverage of her, albeit not in English. I'm bringing this to AfD in case there are foreign language sources out there and in case someone can verify whether or not this record would make Anand notable enough to warrant an article. I'm going to also alert WP:INDIA to this so they can look for sources and also give some valuable input on whether or not the LBoR is something that can give notability. Now if the LBoR is usable as a RS, we also need to decide whether or not the record is notable enough to be kept on that basis alone. I know that occasionally we will keep articles for people who hold specific world records, but those always seem to be records in areas that have an extremely large amount of other secondary coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A world record for back-bendingina particular fashion is not notability. WP is not GUINNESS,which includes al record for anything imaginable. We've never accepted the mere fact of a listing there or in similar books as reason to keep an article.  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The only apparent claim to notability is something that we do not accept as being indicative of notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - A world record is neither a reason for inclusion or exclusion. Notability is defined by having significant reliable source coverage. A search doesn't appear to produce anything, so the subject appears to be non-notable.  However, it is not a judgement on the merits of the record as DGG implies, but rather a judgement on the lack of coverage of said record (or more accurate coverage of the person who achieved it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -I'm not sure of any Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, subject would be able to satisfy at this time. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantive claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2015 (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.