- 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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Aditya Dahal
- Aditya Dahal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All references are in non- reliable sources. WP:BEFORE turns up credulous reports of amazing psychic powers but no actual evidence. A large portion of the current article has no cites and the sources of the claims are not verifiable. Fails the Biographies of Living Persons policy and even general notability is very doubtful. While it is undoubtedly possible for fraudulent psychics, etc. to become notable (e.g., Jeane Dixon), the coverage of this boy does not appear to rise to the necessary level as yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Eggishorn ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Far below needed source level for an article on a seven year old. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete At a minimum, WP:TNT as the current article is just that bad. Sources are iffy at best and would cover 3-4 sentence article. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete "Google boys" are a fad in India, but all, including this one, have no serious coverage that could enable an objective article. WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage is not enough. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- delete Oh God, another BLP of a minor being used by adults. Can't we just nuke these on sight? Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article. Cardamon ( talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Just awful. Neutrality talk 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as per all of the above. In reply to Mangoe, I don't think WP:A7 applies here, and don't feel any possible new CSD criteria for BLPs of minors would get consensus. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Is "blech" a valid rationale for deletion? It should be. Carrite ( talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Aditya Dahal
- Aditya Dahal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All references are in non- reliable sources. WP:BEFORE turns up credulous reports of amazing psychic powers but no actual evidence. A large portion of the current article has no cites and the sources of the claims are not verifiable. Fails the Biographies of Living Persons policy and even general notability is very doubtful. While it is undoubtedly possible for fraudulent psychics, etc. to become notable (e.g., Jeane Dixon), the coverage of this boy does not appear to rise to the necessary level as yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Eggishorn ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Far below needed source level for an article on a seven year old. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete At a minimum, WP:TNT as the current article is just that bad. Sources are iffy at best and would cover 3-4 sentence article. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete "Google boys" are a fad in India, but all, including this one, have no serious coverage that could enable an objective article. WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage is not enough. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- delete Oh God, another BLP of a minor being used by adults. Can't we just nuke these on sight? Mangoe ( talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article. Cardamon ( talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Just awful. Neutrality talk 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG Chetsford ( talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as per all of the above. In reply to Mangoe, I don't think WP:A7 applies here, and don't feel any possible new CSD criteria for BLPs of minors would get consensus. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Is "blech" a valid rationale for deletion? It should be. Carrite ( talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.