Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prijesh Kannan


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Prijesh Kannan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E, but as far as I see, being in the Guinness Book of Records is not an award that renders somebody notable. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BLP1E, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 17:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Article was created as a draft, and declined as not notable multiple times. Article was 'self-published' by an account named after the subject of the article, as that account's only edit. Article has been the subject of many repeated discussions at #wikipedia-en-help, and notability has repeatedly been researched by helpers who have determined that this is a case of BLP1E. What's more, all indications are, IMO, that this is purely and simply a case of attempted self-promotion by the subject of the article. I strongly suspect, based on these conversations, that the helpees are all the subject of the article. The 'help requests' at this point have devolved to pure otherstuff arguments, and complaints that the article is not being given sufficient time to improve.
 * While the subject of the article does appear to have some degree of 'reknown' as a Guinness world record holder, I have yet to see any indication of significant coverage that fulfills the notability criteria, and the subject appears to be heavily self-promoting. I strongly suspect at this point that if the article is deleted a refund request will be made, and the article recreated as refund abuse. A salt should thus be considered by the closing admin. Revent talk 07:26, 5 August 2014 (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.