Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Upadhyaya


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 11:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dinesh Upadhyaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Utter trivia. Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Guiness Book of Records. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Strongly Keep - Wikipedia keeps record of many non-notable people like Oxford University's teacher or porn stars with 5 credits. I don't think a normal porn actor or a university's professor with no noteworthy achievement is deserving for a biography. The article clearly notes that he has made 89 Guinness records to his credit, so the person is important and his bio should be kept. Ratsama (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. trivia, not notable.  DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It is trivia and as such it is not notable in Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MT TrainDiscuss 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Hagennos  ❯❯❯  Talk  21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Störm   (talk)  17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete another example of total silliness in creating an article. I have to agree that people who appear in a few pronographic films are not notable, but that is no reason to create this article on someone who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (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.