Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venkatesh Gattem

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. Geschichte (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesh Gattem

Venkatesh Gattem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Key issues with the article:

• No reliable sources to confirm Guinness World Record and Limca book of records entries. Searches in either of the records' website do not return any results of the claim. Guinness website instead lists someone named Steven J. Backman to hold the record [[1]]. Here is also an archived copy of the 2017 record book [[2]] which do not list the subject's name. It is likely some local records touted as Limca/Guinness. However, merely receiving some awards doesn't confer automatic notability.
• despite some tabloid coverage I will take the claims of the Guinness World Record with a pinch of salt as fake records are not uncommon in the region [[3]] [[4]].
• Whitewashing using fake Hon. Doctorate from a bogus university. Following sources suggest it is nothing more than a diploma-mill.^[1][2][3]
• Overall it fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. The article is meant for promotion and therefore, misuse of Wikipedia.

Also to note, the creator of the article has COI which is being discussed here [[5]] RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GNG and several issues with the integrity of the article and its conception listed above.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only claim of notability in the article is an obscure Guinness World Records listing, which is not enough for an article. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @RationalPuff: So, you think he managed to spam Entire Government of India along with then President of India with fake record? The Guinness Record Holder Store Code IDs are as follows: ID:417642630, Code: epls2390EP. FYI, not all records are published on annual edition of book, but only a few does. By using the reference codes I've provided above anyone from Guinness can confirm the record. And when it comes to records section, there are more than one award that contributes to notability which include India book of records; Rashtriya Gauram Samman by NYAFI in 2018; Ugadi Puraskar by Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2018; National Youth Award in 2019 by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India; World Records India for Miniature Matchstick carving. Yes I agree the article is invalid if it only cites Guinness world record holder, but in this case it isn't.--iMahesh (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: It hardly matters what I or someone thinks. We can lay out the facts which will be good enough to reach a consensus. Verifiability is in question here. We should aim to address this. Taking photos with the Govt. officials doesn't mean they vetted the claims. I'm not sure how someone verifies your above info other than what's on the public domain. All Guinness records are searchable, however, registration is required to search full database. Some other records you mentioned are not credible enough — there are hundreds of such record books around the globe all offering "World Records". Moreover, the nobility is not established on the back of the awards and records which I find pretty much run-of-the-mill and often suspicious wiki entries. Bogus PhD does raise questions on integrity which further reinforce doubts on the whole thing. RationalPuff (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: Why he was seen holding this 2017 record book when his record was not included in it?[[6]]RationalPuff (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RationalPuff: Point to mention  High Priority, is he seriously using Wikipedia as a advertisement on his website?--iMahesh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had so many important things rather than debating about subject liability on the claimed record. Articles can always be restored from deletion when required. And good job RationalPuff finding out the fake university. Please remember that Guinness never publishes all of the records on its annual edition, but only a few important records does. I do agree that having a Guinness record doesn't imply an article on Wikipedia, but when it comes the verify-ability of the record, above data data provided by me can always help. Since Wikipedia is a open-source and above data can never be retrieved without the subject's contact it would be of no use here. I should have probably stayed in Geography, Demographical and Architectural related articles rather than stepping into this BLP pile. Please remember to nominate articles for deletion rather than just tagging them with SDs and PrODs from next time..--iMahesh (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2021 (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.