Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupak Sapkota


 * 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. Tone 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Rupak Sapkota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of article is a non notable scholar who has no in-depth significan coverage in reliable sources hence does not qualify as per GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The argument for DELETE would be: Weighing everything, it's a WEAK KEEP from me if the article creator discloses their COI and commits to following policy, before this is closed, and otherwise a
 * A tough one. It's true that GNG is not unequivocally met. But I would usually vote KEEP appealing to systemic bias on this kind of borderline cases relating to Nepal but for some additional considerations. This, this and this are the SIGCOVs we have. My search didn't reveal anything else and I'm inclined to think this is all there is, considering the article is almost certainly WP:AUTO or at the very least WP:PAID. The first source is just a poor man's second source covering the same event, while the third one, the very existence of which is impressive contributor toward presumption of notability, doesn't itself bring much to the table by way of potentially supporting new content. Additional arguments for Keep include the facts that
 * 1) the subject seems to be one of the foremost Nepali scholars on Nepal-China relations not to mention actually knowing Chinese and having a PhD, and therefore the go-to expert for news media, print and otherwise, national and international.
 * 2) the subject seems to be a prolific contributor to newspapers, although the google scholar stats are unimpressive.
 * 3) the subject is the son of Agni Sapkota and therefore, WP:CRYSTAL alert, is only going to move upward and onward (incidentally also an argument for DELETE (WP:TOOSOON)). As we have enough independent SIGCOV to maintain a stub, we might as well keep it to save trouble of recreation.
 * 1) As with creation, the only interested party in maintaining/updating the article is likely to be a WP:COI one. An undisclosed COI editor let loose on an article no one else is interested in maintaining, does not an encyclopedic entry make. The article itself requires a lot of cleanup already, almost to the point of qualifying for a WP:TNT. So, it's preferable to nuke this one and wait for the subject to become truly notable enough for an independent editor to recreate the article.


 * DELETE until such time as the subject attains unquestionable notability (1.5 to 2 more SIGCOVs meeting the criteria). Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. We need to quickly destroy any articles that are such or we will be flooded by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  13:39, 12 January 2020 (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.