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. Courcelles 00:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amruth Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD. Reason for the proposed deletion: "Claim individual is "the second youngest entrepreneur in the world" seems dubious and lacks a source. No indication that subject has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as per WP:NOTE".

Article author has suggested sources may become available but we shouldn't have an article until proper sources are actually available. Adambro (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The main website of the subject was edited recently saying that incorporating TrendGFX has made him the second youngest CEO of the world. And I have heard from other sources that the media may also interview the lad, that I know because I work with the media. But it takes time to get such information to the public.

  So I plead you to bear with me and let the article be until full citations are given.

  By the way, is it possible to delete the warning on the article now? I am confident about the media interviewing him soon, but there is no fixed date and can take time.

  Or if not, is it possible atleast to have a small grace period for the citations to become available? After the grace period, you can bring back the warning. Asokan Ramalingam (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll delete the notification for now since there has been no response. Please do bear with me until the media get running, deleting this article will only cause trauma to the subject. Asokan Ramalingam (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never delete an AfD notification while the discussion is still open (it even says this when you edit the article). Anyway, delete. All I could find on Google were the usual suspects. And if this person really was the second youngest entrepreneur in the world, don't you think he would have some Gnews hits? He has none. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. Silly claims. Anyone can incorporate. I incorporated when I was about the same age, and that doesn't make me notable. Pburka (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Convicted out of the mouth of the article's author, it appears. Skdasokan has pretty much stated outright above that xe is not in fact writing verifiable content, based upon reliable sources independent of the subject that have checked their facts, in the first place. Since this article is unverifiable, per Wikipedia:deletion policy the outcome should be delete. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Neptune5000 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity piece with no reliable sources to establish notability. Salih (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources, pure, self promoting vanity piece. Nothing to indicate the media will ever 'get running' with this one. Pol430 talk to me 13:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's no reliable sources to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable sources. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas - delete. Claims are dubious and unlikely to be verifiable. Sorry, kiddo, maybe next year. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (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.