Deletion of Ankit Arora (cyclist)

Comment: I was torn on this. The text as written doesn't really do the subject justice (should focus on the record in the lead). There are now four |independent |reliable sources. Of these, three are long, detailed pieces, for a national sporting record (or the pre-success attempt at it), in two comparatively well-regarded, national Indian newspapers with significant outside-India readership, plus a regional one. (The fourth is a small piece in a lesser-known publication, but certainly does no harm.)  The newest addition dwells on the record, not on personal "chit chat" as NitinMlk put it.  But the big two really are mostly interviews with little material of encyclopedic interest; they're mostly primary not secondary source material. How much print a major newspaper thought the subject was worth hints at notability, but lengthy, fluffy interview stuff doesn't quite {{em|establish}} it.  Part of me wants to think articles like this are the kind of ystemic bias gap we're supposed to be filling. If this article were about an American or Brit, with similar coverage in US or UK newspapers, I suspect it would be a NOW|snowball keep. But that's not a good thing.I would rather see articles on Indian sportspeople in {{em|international}}-class competition. And this record isn't something subject to regular competition anyway, it's one of those obscure ''Guinness Book'' things. I have concerns about the future of the article: is it likely that this subject is ever going to do anything else that edges toward notable?  Do we have any indications he's going to become an Olympian or something?  More likely that he'll go back to work as a journalist and remain an amateur cyclist. So, in the end I think it should be deleted, and if he unmistakably climbs the notability wall in 6 months or 3 years or whatever, then we'll have something more substantial to write about.On the other hand, I think this article would be kept, hands-down, if it were about a bit-part actor who'd landed a role as a witch or a martial-arts monk in a few episodes of a TV show hardly anyone watches, because !voters would seize upon fluffy ''Entertainment Tonight'' and ''People'' magazine coverage as "establishing notability". Our idea of what constitutes notable in different fields is terribly skewed, and we're giving out WP articles to an F-load of actors who are not notable but simply competent. Same goes for one-hit-wonder pop music acts: the song is notable, the band is not. Entertainment-press coverage is worth far less than this Indian sports coverage, because it's not actually substantive or independent (when it doesn't consists of interviews, it's either primary-source reviewer opinion-mongering, or weird paparazzi creeping). The entertainment press exist for the sole purpose of reporting on and regurgitating trivia, to sell you on the idea that random, overpaid, marginally competent but pretty (or, sometimes, strangely compellingly ugly) people should be worshipped because they're entertaining. Almost all of these publications' funding comes from advertising money of the studios whose shows/films/music they're writing about, and they're more often than not ultimately owned by the same conglomerates as the studios themselves; they're a giant, shared house organ of pseudo-celebrity cults of personality. Anyway, this cyclist is the close equivalent of a one-hit wonder band or an actor with a minor recurring role in four episodes of a TV show. It's a fifteen-minutes-of-fame thing, and WP is terrible at dealing with that concept.  We even know we are, but we don't do anything to fix it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDY||WP:RS||WP:S||WP:SNOW)