Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey


 * 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. Closing early for WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, to save the subject further embarrassment through this AfD and because of the WP:BLP concerns regarding the article content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Shardul Pandey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * A user on Hindi wikipedia (hi:user:शार्दूल created page on Hindi and was deleted, I had tagged delete notice here also the person is not notable and is a mere user, but it was removed by some one pl see this-Bhawani (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A user on Hindi wikipedia (hi:user:शार्दूल created page on Hindi and was deleted, I had tagged delete notice here also the person is not notable and is a mere user, but it was removed by some one pl see this-Bhawani (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 Ryan Vesey  Review me!
 * The idea that anyone averaging 10 comments per day in AfD discussions was canvassed to a particular discussion would need a diff. Too funny. Dru of Id (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Although I don't think I average that many. I haven't even hit 100 discussions yet and I've been here for a year and a couple months.  I'm going to head that way again now.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I get some time I always try to create some article for Wikipedia as value-addition to this commonwealth of humanity and whatever suits to most of Wikipedians stays and whatever is not not but user-behavior here is not a lesser subject to keep under check than our articles are.--SearchinUnMentionedInformationThrough8158 09:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP Although I have a strong sense of not arguing in favor of my works just to let my sense of contribution benefitting by other Wikipedians’ debate but here I will have to make a few things very clear as a matter of public truth in the interest of Wikipedia: -
 * 1) This user Bhawani wrongly claimed that user hi:user:शार्दूल had written this article and subjected to deletion without seeing that article was created by me and is within the scope of WikiProject Biography already rated in its category as stub class.
 * 2) Once this user Bhawani made a mistake of wrongly subjecting and getting deleted its hindi version so now tricking most of Wikipedians make another mistake here by spreading false information like on user Al Ameer son’s talk page user Bhawani had written that "please see Shardul_Pandey, an article written by a user. His user name on Hindi wikipedia is hi:user:शार्दूल." No not him nor anyone else but I started this article about a notable person who is very much notable always topping all possible results in google search and the article started by me itself attracted 2090 curious visitors in last 60 days proving the subject notable enough. Thousands of people are coming on Wikipedia wants to read about him and millions search him on google so only he tops the result.
 * 3) Bhawani evidently shows habit of wrongdoings as is shown on all over his talk page including his failed attempt of creating a page about a not notable person Panakj sharma and he was clearly warned "I deleted the Panakj sharma page that you created, because it was not an encyclopedic article. Please do contribute constructively to Wikipedia—the "Welcome" text at the top of this page contains some helpful information." by user User:Ucucha. Later on a page on Wikipedia about Pankaj Sharma got made with correct spellings (as first one was made so hurriedly that spellings too went wrong perhaps: WHAT KIND OF THIS WIKIPEDIAN HAS ENFORCED THIS TIME-WASTE FOR ALL OF US), which attracts only 640 readers in 60 days. Should we subject that too for speedy deletion?
 * Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO; article also is overly promotional. The SPA IP's should note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that deletion arguments should be grounded in policy. → B  music  ian  12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as this article is certainly not a case of WP:CSD G11. you have not read it perhaps as anyone can see that it is not. Read Early Years--101.63.211.57 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP article is neutral, categorically rated, adequately popular among readers and the subject is notably mentioned in the list of notables as Pandey in wikipedia so keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.231.162 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I have checked sufficiently to agree with creator of the page in all his three arguments above. Nominator for deletion is not mature enough for Wikipedian behavior. See this article Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh made by him. Such things are subject to WP:CSD G11 and niether he did bother to put references in context nor the article is popular enough. Only 50 times it was seen in last 30 days perhaps by user Bhawani and his subject to celebrate success.--115.184.13.151 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep- yes alexa.com shows no data for official website of Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh Nominator of this deletion is dubious by behavior. Better someone put Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh for speedy deletion. This discussion must get closed on the basis of Nominator's inappropriate record of practice and not adequate reasons involved since this article about a suitably notable person is quite popular also. It is a perfect case of speedy keep--115.241.97.165 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Article is nohow promotional but nomination for deletion is self-promotional and such concerted effort to not reply real questions but questioning unregistered users is VANDALISM. IP is just enough to make a point and only making real points count at the end Mr Be Musician!--101.63.238.110 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 101.63.238.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP I support reason. Very well said about pseudo-Wikipedians who fail to address reasons and hide behind UserIDs. Up to this extent we can excuse but how they dare to question the integrity of unregistered users. Wikipedia is made to this extent by unregistered users only. Better face real questions and stop talking nonsense jargon. Anonymously telling truth doesn't degrade reason. In this case article is ok and nomination to deletion is not ok.--115.184.57.32 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.184.57.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Keep what is so strangely going on here. whole internet is populated by us. always expect us whenever u do something wrong online. we made wikipedia and not duffers like u who think that notable persons shall never be a user or opposing something by someone cannot be taken if he has no standing involvement. it is not only an article but u have outraged a whole community of anonymous internet users by insulting independent opinions. one thing ur peers know better that wikipedia cannot continue without us anonymous contributors and a very significant development of this has come by one-time contributors only. better behave rationally in the interest of wikipedia's future rather than doing nonsense for this or that article.--115.242.172.205 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.242.172.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy KEEP Ok Ok calm down! we shall send this vandalism to its logical end. Perhaps the time has come when Wikipedia has to rethink about its user system and promotional pattern. Such wrong nominations are done due to that only. We will see to it systematically. Internet is independent and whosoever is not so won't be here for a long time to come.--115.242.138.89 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 115.242.138.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy keep yea it is right vote that they don't want to count perhaps as is clear from the signboard above everything else. anyway it looks most interesting place to hangout today so i am also here. wikipedia is not a democracy is a good thing. it can't even be. i don't like democracies. i like morons like who created this page to f..k whatever it is. i condemn everything about it and the way it is going on. internet is primarily IPs and if u r that sort of thing why your admins made it (whatever it is) open to everyone around? u have insulted democracy also. even internet doesn't yet have dared for that. i came to read the article about not a notable but a notorious fellow (do u know the difference amid being notable 'n' notarious that exactly stands as being OBAMA or OSAMA) like everybody else perhaps and there i saw signboard directing to this place and here another signboard doubting my arrival. it is u damn-fools who invited me here by first signboard before to insult my arrival by putting another signboard. u certainly r not democracy but do u know what u look like by opening this page? i won't write as whatever reasonable is written perhaps u don't bother for that and whatever u bother for whole world will now understand much better.--115.241.81.209 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP and expand What is ur argument baby? Do you know atleast? You better read article or learn meaning of words. We come to read interesting information and the article under discussion is a such one about a well-known person although written with very little information. I think that should better get expanded in to an encyclopedic one by putting some more interesting information. subject is good enough to carry a feature article. Whosoever is demanding deletion has no convincing reason for doing so. Wikipedia has a lot of garbage instead that deserves speedy deletion.--101.63.142.196 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep no nonsense will prevent truth from prevailing. the article is about a highly notable person with very strong readership that is coming here because of ur biased signboarding on article page. If u r not dumb or dishonest read this data from ur sources Any untoward action won't get tolerated by us people. this debate is exposing u so u want closing this but we disallow. and we must continue debating ur dubious intentions of vandalising wikipedia which is not ur property for ur kind information. THIS ARTICLE SHALL STAY and we are going to count every vote.--115.242.227.200 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! so many people here and this f..k..g thing is getting longer than the article being discussed. is this a parliament going on discussing LOKPAL or SOPA like that. What is the problem buddy. Article is already there. Just remove that f..k..g signboard and shut down this shop. Wikipedia has a lot better to do than just deleting one good thing for nothing. Oh I forget to vote but whether that can really remove that signboard. If so I say REMOVE THAT BOARD and Speedy KEEP to expand into an encyclopedic one u good for nothing self-proclaimed watchdogs of not a democracy or whatever also not--115.241.119.33 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep article is neither biased nor promotional and citations are of high page ranks about the very notable Internet activist. I say KEEP and almost evrybody has said that except only few users who made this concerted effort to make wikipedia do a blunder.--115.242.222.250 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEPas nominator of dubious record has fled the scene and failed to duly reason here so it is a crystal clear case of speedy keep.--115.242.128.12 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep as only keeping is rational while deleting shall be dubious like the nominator is proved. writer of the article is very sensible contributor always away from vandalism of all sorts & cheap tactics as is played in this undue nomination for deletion. citations are from adequately good sources. I believe the article and doubt all doubts artificially shown by a few registered users in alliance vandalizing Wikipedia.--115.242.213.4 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy keep the article is getting popular since it is written. in fact it is very well written although needs to be expanded as it is about the most dynamic personality of India who did a lot since very early age. He was extremely popular even as a kid when he made strongest possible arguments to make elders respect children's individual freedom. almost all Hindi newspapers respect him as youth icon. Citations beyond Internet are also available and must be brought on web if someone can do so and make it a featured article of Wikipedia.--115.184.76.72 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment My speedy delete argument still stands. If it is not to be speedy deleted (I suppose it may be the most contested speedy deletion if it were) it is still written from a highly promotional tone and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article, as written, is a load of crap. There may be a case for keeping it, but it needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone with a command of the English language, without the hagiography and with some genuine verifiable evidence of notability. I have never suggested an article should be deleted because of the quality of the writing - after all, it is open to other genuine editors to edit - but in this case I'm prepared to make an exception because I can't even imagine where to start. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Terribly written, filthy with WP:PEACOCK terms, promotional, fails notability and is in violation of Biographies of Living Persons. ` BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is so poorly written that I was laughing as I was reading it. The IPs' "rationales" for keeping it actually further strengthen why it should be deleted. The sooner this article is salted and gotten rid of the better. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as an only intermittently comprehensible hagiography. It does seem to suggest that the activities of the biographee have been discussed by Richard Stallman; but when you click on the link to see what this consists of, you find that it is no more convincing than this wretched Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – I'm the one who deleted this on Hindi Wikipedia. There's no coverage about the subject in any independent reliable source, so fails our notability guidelines. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please to make deleting: Best poor writings of boy inconsequential. Structure of encyclopedia with unverified mouthings unreliable does this jeopardize. Following of languages should also be doing.   Ravenswing   16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't normally call an article crap, but this one is a crap. Salih  ( talk ) 17:23, 22 May 2012 (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.