Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhakar Chaturvedi

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 Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious; non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Chaturvedi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chaturvedi is only a claimant to the title of the world's oldest living person and oldest living man. Neither Chaturvedi, Mariam Amash, Ma Pampo, Sant Kaur Bajwa, etc. deserve an article. Delete this article. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)74.78.72.209 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious keep; the article is well-cited and of sufficient notability independent of longevity. The nominator seems to be on a rampage nominating old people for deletion, but it's ironic to see that the stated reason for deletion is comparison with a bunch of articles that do exist. Anyway, all that is irrelevant, because this person is notable in own right (the article doesn't even go into that much detail about his age, it's mostly about the other things he's known for). Shreevatsa (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC

Most of the references are from India, and the man is not known as a philosopher outside of India. He is a claimant to the world's oldest living man/person. There is no evidence that he is, or deserves an article. I am not on a rampage deleting old peoples' articles. Misao Okawa and Bernice Madigan absolutely deserve an article. They are among the verified oldest living people. The other listed articles are not in this category and have no place on Wikipedia. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.