Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keshab Dahal


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Keshab Dahal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NPOL. There are quite a few articles he's published in national newspapers, or at least their online versions, but I could find none that was published about him, not even trivial coverage. Spam factory as of now, tried to clean it up myself but gave up after I couldn't find RS to replace it with.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another non-notable candidate from an article creator with a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as no sources can be found, just a random person from a dissolved political party. Can't find him in the national newspapers. No idea why this exists. --WikiAviator (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being on the central organizing committee of a small political party is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG — but the article presents no credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons. You don't make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to his own writing as technical verification that it exists, you make a person notable as a writer by referencing claims about his writing career to journalism (book reviews, news articles, etc.) written by other people as evidence that media paid independent third party attention to his writing. But that's not what the "sources" here are. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reliable source from this article that could prove it's notability. Barca (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2019 (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.