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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Chao (Guinness World Records)[edit]

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

I would argue that WP is not a world record book or a depository of facts. Having an article for every world record holder would create an absurd abundance of pages. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear case of WP:BLP1E; the one event isn't remotely notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely worth mentioning in the article for Pi, let alone having a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say this should be kept, but having a separate article about it is definitely better than mentioning in the article about

π

. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no way this meets WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suggest a redirect to Piphilology but he is not even mentioned there after someone else broke his record. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some RS coverage: his record attempt was reported by Sohu [1] and China News Service, [[2]]. But not quite substantial enough coverage for WP:GNG IMHO. Matt's talk 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a random dump of miscellaneous information. DrStrauss talk 10:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - breaking an arbitrary record does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2017 (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.