Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capt Aditya Goel

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capt Aditya Goel[edit]

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

Holder of a trivial record (youngest Indian with a student pilot license). The article mentions that the record is recognized by the India Book of Records and the Asia Book of Records. Wikipedia is not a book of records, especially for records so insignificant and so dependent on local regulation. The Asia book of records says that he got it at 16 when "the normal age is 18" which would suggest he got it through bending regulation. In fact that might not be the case since this page suggests that any 16 year old in India can apply for a private pilot license. Not so surprisingly, I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT , THE PERSON MENTIONED THAT NORMALLY THE AGE IS 18 YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO WORK HARD ENOUGH AT THE AGE OF 16 AS THEY ARE BUSY WITH THEIR STUDIES ETC , WHEREAS I DEVOTED TIME TO MY STUDIES AS WELL AS PILOT STUDIES AND ACHIEVED THIS FEAT. NO REGULATION WAS BENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag737 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Ag737 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The question is not whether you worked hard (I'm sure you did) or whether it's impressive to get a pilot license at a young age (it is). But in the larger scheme of things, this is insignificant. A pilot could get a license tomorrow and get a license a day younger and your article would have to read "Aditya Goel is an Indian pilot who was the youngest to get a license for a period of a few months in 2012 and 2013". Wikipedia is interested in records that are historically significant or that generated signifcant and sustained coverage in multiple sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked a little deeper and it's clear that the Asia Book of Records and the India Book of Records is the same website which probably posts records for a fee and it's such a small amateurish operation that they clearly don't have the resources they would need to validate that record in a country as large as India (and with a notoriously disorganized bureaucracy). So I'm not even convinced that you hold that record. Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for this individual indicates that he has littered the social media with postings about his accomplishment, but that no news coverage was generated for the feat. Impressive? Yes. Notable. No. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of true notability; references are remarkably non-reliable. Not enough there to meet WP:GNG. If there was independent media coverage of this I'd be swayed, but all I see is self-generated content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy G11 may be appropriate as a self-generated promotional article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 4 March 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.