Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayan Prasad Adhikari


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Narayan Prasad Adhikari

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No enough information provided. The article is not of an important person. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, elected official of a national parliament. No clear rationale for deletion. --Soman (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: He is an elected representative of Nepal, and his status is comparable to a member of the Parliament of Great Britain or similar bodies. --Bhadani (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. If there's no formal criterion for speedily keeping an article which has a cast-iron reliable source confirming a slam-dunk pass of WP:POLITICIAN then there should be, and until there is we should act as if there were. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: He does not pass the WP:POLITICIAN. As per point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, just being an elected official for a political office does not mean he/she is notable. And this person has no significant coverage on anything. There are more than 600+ members like him. It does not mean we create wiki pages of everyone. If he was a central member of party along with this post or if he had any major contribution or if he had any significant coverage as I have mentioned, then I would agree  as well. Sorry, those who are favouring for Keep, your arguments are not convincing. The references say nothing about the person. I vote for delete.  DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to differ: in fact, point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to Adhikari as he was elected to Nepal's highest legislative entity. Point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN applies to Adhikari which states, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." --Bhadani (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also submit that the Delete vote by the user:DBSSURFER may not be taken into account as this user is the initiator of this delete discussion. --Bhadani (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And, yes. If there are 600+ members like Adhikari, we have to create pages for each one of them. For example, if there are 100,000 villages in Nepal, we will have to create pages for each one of them. We are here for this purpose only. --Bhadani (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, Nepal does not have 100000 villages, India definitely does! nepal has more cities nowadays. keeping these aside, I would like to add he was not elected to any legislative entity. Nepal does not have a constitution as of now. he is only a constituent assembly member. I have no problem to keep his page, but the references should at least prove it and give more details. the references do not have any information as Bhadani is claiming. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Constituent Assembly is currently the national legislature of Nepal, and the reference proves that the subject is a member, so passing WP:POLITICIAN. If you think that the article should provide more details then how will deleting it achieve that? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep member of the national legislature under whatever name it may be and regardless of precise constitutional status.  One the most established special guidelines. We cover all the world on equal terms,  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 21 October 2011 (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.