Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikesh Thapaliya

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Thapaliya

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

Holder of multiple world records... such as memorizing countries and their capitals... Nothing of substance here. Does not meet any notability guideline. I did not propose this for A7 given that the "world records" could conceivably be seen as claims to notability. In the absence of any significant and independent coverage (other than "RecordSetter"): Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In no way would reach Bio-notablity standards. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikesh is not just a world record holder. If he was just a world record holder, he would not qualify for being in this biography of Wikipedia. World records are just a part of this biography. He has been a writer, freelancer, activist, UN Volunteer, etc. and achieved quite a lot at his young age. User:Ath.Sn —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This biography can be improved but not necessarily be deleted! There are still many pages in Wikipedia which exist here simply because a person has won one beauty pageant and also if someone has played role in one film. This biography is here not because the person is just simply a world record holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not come close to passing notability standards. The article only talks about him as a record holder; if he has other achievements tha actually are notable they should be added to the article but simply doing a lot of things at a young age does not confer notability per Wikipedia's definition of the term. --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny records, but no reason to assume any notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable young man who may become notable some day (or not). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable vanity article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Improve : What if this person is introduced as writer/journalist/activist and use his world records as only secondary stuff!?! (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk)
Done IMPROVED!!! Lots of changes have been made. He has been introduced as writer/journalist/activist. World records have been mentioned as only secondary parts and other works. (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, there is still no indication that he is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Don't get me wrong, he seems to be a remarkable young man, but "remarkable" does not automatically mean "notable" - there are different criteria for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 06:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many pages on Wikipedia which are simply there just because the person has won a beauty pageant or has played in just a film or two. They also have some kinds of Wikipedia messages above them but have existed since long. Is winning a beauty pageant or playing in one film a strong sign of notability? And, is it possible to report any such pages to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The state of another article is irrelevant to whether this one should be kept. Whether these other articles are notable or not, this article has to be judged on its own merits, against the notability criteria. You can check for yourself whether there are claims to notability that meet Wikipedia's criteria (which have been linked to repeatedly in the discussion above) in those other articles, and if not, you are free to nominate them for deletion - but the nomination has to be based only on Wikipedia policy, and not on any argument on the lines of "that article was deleted so this one should be as well". --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough of it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ath.Sn Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this article, I think it is not good to have an issue over just 'world record' things. Even if we talk about his world records, these amazing abilities are notable, I think. Anyways, now what next? After how many days will an article go off Wikipedia after being nominated for deletion? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends a bit on how active the discussion is and if there is a clear line in the !votes, but normally after 7 to 14 days. In this case, I see a lot of delete-votes from several people and a lot of comments/keep-votes from people named in de sockpuppet-case. It should not be difficult for an admin to close the AfD on the 18th as delete. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WAX arguments from WP:SOCKing creator are unconvincing. WP:SNOW in the forecast. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We now strictly understand that any article on here must meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Our intention was not to spam this discussion and please don't accuse us of SockPoppetry as we are new to Wikipedia and don't even know much on its techniques. But we really appreciate the unique and 'remarkable' talents of him (not at all 'funny' as mentioned somewhere above but we'd say intellectual and geeky). We are glad for you guys constantly taking care of this article. Nothing was personal! We hope we can contribute a little to any existing articles in days to come. Thanks again! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk • contribs)

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.