Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandran Superman

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. Sandstein 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandran Superman

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, reads like a CV JMHamo (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly speedy material and I'm impulses to tag it as such, article is barely comprehensible and no signs of solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO, a person may be notable if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour... This person is a Guinness World Record Holder. Per WP:ARTIST, a person may be notable if the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Newspapers like The New Paper (apparently Singapore's 2nd highest circulating English paper) have critically reviewed him deeply and multiple times, both positively and negatively – the negative one is interesting, because that shows critical review. This extensive day-long photo feature with journalist Regina Marie Lee is also evidence of winning critical attention. I suspect he would even qualify on WP:ENTERTAINER, being the significant performer in various stage shows, which are documented on reliable sources like The New Indian Express. The current state of the article is bad, even pathetic – it needs to be majorly culled and shorn of the hagiographic stuff. But not a delete. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "He flung the exams twice and gave up". We should flung this article and delete it as promotional puffery. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for doing this in the middle of this AfD but I have just gone ahead and culled the complete biography and rewritten it from top down using the most reliable sources and the most notable achievements of this individual, including his receiving the 2014 Guinness World Record for most cane illusions and his 2014 Merlin Award from the International Magicians Society. Purely my opinion that it looks encyclopaedic in its current form now, given that I've rewritten it to adhere to WP:ARTIST. Maybe editors could suggest how it looks in its current form (it needs to be moved to a correct title; can I do that in the middle of this Afd?). Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar It now hinges on the status of a Guinness record for doing something totally unimportant and the Merlin Award which our article describes as "lack[ing] much of the oversight that enhance the credibility of awards in other industries". I am sticking with Delete unless there is anything more credible. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philafrenzy, I am new to this process so am actually still learning. So I hope you don't mind my requesting clarification as I don't understand views sometimes and realise I might make mistakes. My apologies in advance for any mistakes in my arguments. When I wanted to participate in Afds, one helpful administrator told me that the Afd process works based on quoting of policies and guidelines and not on personal views. Therefore I quoted WP:ANYBIO above (A person may be notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour..."). In my view, by WP:ANYBIO, this biography qualifies easily as the Guinness award is a well known and significant award of honour. As much as I know, cane illusions are really tough – comparatively, one might wish to criticise Guinness World record holders for longest moustache; but irrespective, these are well known awards nevertheless. Similarly, I quoted WP:ARTIST (A person may be notable if "the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention"). The multiple, indepth coverage received by this individual in multiple news reports in my view qualifies for significant critical attention. Moreover, none of the statements in the current biography are unencyclopaedic in my view. So I am confused. Should we be commenting in Afds based on our perception or should these guidelines be quoted? Please don't mind my questions. I am actually confused. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTIST is for "authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". i.e. figures in culture, not magicians. I am sorry to say that in my opinion a Guinness record is not a "significant award or honor". That means the Nobel Prize, winning the Victoria Cross, and similar awards, not doing "the most cane reveal illusions in one minute", which is a form of achievement but not one that is significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point here Philafrenzy. Last week I noticed that there is a forum on Wikipedia that has editors commenting on sources. You would of course already know about it. It is called reliable sources noticeboard. I think I will take your point of whether being awarded a Guinness World Record is or is not a significant award out there and request for some comments from other editors. Hope it's appropriate to do that. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because that is not what that board is for. There is no doubt that the Guinness book is a reliable source for who holds one of their records. What I am saying here is that the record itself doesn't matter. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I have already posted the query there. Let's anyway see what editors comment there. I have to thank you for the views you have presented. They do open up new perspectives. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of notability. The guide we would use here is WP:ENT, and the subject fails that. Not all Guinness awards are notable. "The most cane reveal illusions in one minute" would qualify as that, and the "Merlin Award" is also not significant enough on its own. Scr★pIron^IV 19:14, 23 February 2016 (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.