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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Thapa[edit]

Manish Thapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No indication of notability as per WP:PROF. The organizations listed must be notable enough to make the director of them notable by proxy. No listed publications or positions.

May someday be notable under the criteria but information here suggests otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a little tricky. It is clear that he does not really yet have the accomplishments to meet the usual standard of WP:PROF, or probably the GNG--though sources are difficult on this subject. I think there is a distinct possibility that even these accomplishments as shown by the weak sources present in the article are notable for this particular area, which is just now developing Western-model academic institutions. In other words, a possible keep as cultural bias. I am uncomfortable arguing we should use weaker standards for some countries--quite apart from the encyclopedia, it sounds too much like condescending cultural imperialist bias--but i think it may none the less be a realistic attitude sometimes.. DGG (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't notice this before, but there may be a COI issue here, since the username of the author matches the subject of the page. Also, the IP that has Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I reserve judgment on the above, but the institutions involved are developed western institutions of a high caliber. Nortre Dame, University of Tokyo, and McGill. Even so, the academic qualifications are clearly outside WP:PROF. We don't include everyone who has a PhD or even include all professors. Even for professors (which usually implies the phd) there has to be a notable accomplishment, like a named chair. This individual also is involved in several organizations, but those organizations' notabilties are questionable. Of those, only the International Peace Research Association and the Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) have wikipedia pages. The IPRA page has 5 editors and 15 edits. Seven of the edits are from the author of this page (another 3 are from an IP user. The IP is from Notre Dame (the current university of the subject of this article) and has edited only to this article and to the other organization listed in this article), whose user name is the same as the subject of this page. The APPRA page has only two editors. The author of this page and the the same IP editor above. I want to be over inclusive with academics but this article reads like a faculty page or worse a CV. Being arbitrary about whats included is unfair and misleading, suggesting some academics are more important than others. This is why the criteria are as objective as possible and need to be used. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and research and nourish (stubify in the meantime if necessary). If a person has over 1000 Ghits, there's an excellent chance there will be some which are reliable sources. COI is not grounds for deletion if notability is satisfied, it merely means that other people need to rewrite the article as necessary. WP:PROF does not come in to this discussion as his notability is clearly as a peace activist. dramatic (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all of those google hits at least one of them should easily come up with an easy reliable source. I recommend you post that here, or to the article. Excellent chances, particularly with google hits, are not enough, and there's actually a wp policy on point (google hits are not an argument). With all due respect, the COI is relevant, especially here, because you'd expect someone representing their own interests to point out all the relevant info. If you want to make an argument about how the peace activism is relevant, you should do so by finding an article that says that the involvement is notable. Co-chair of a possibly notable activist group is not enough. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The subject is a PhD candidate with no real independent sources to establish notability. The closest we get to a secondary source is this interview profile, which hardly seems to be a independently reported or reliable piece of journalism, and ,as per my reading, is being misused to support the statement "He founded Nepal Peace Initiative Alliance in 2005 which was instrumental in the establishment of Ministry of Peace & Reconstruction in Nepal." If the subject did play a key role in establishment of the Nepal's Ministry of Peace, that would be notable and very easy to establish using mainstream and reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article seems to be a cut-n-paste from [1]. not sure if this is a copyvio, since both seem to be self-profiles written by Manish Thapa himself, and therefore he may have the right to release them under GFDL. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' ph.d. candidate, like me, fewer google hits than me by a factor of somewhere between 10 and 60 depending on how you search. no... there is no notability here as an academic, if he has sufficiently verifiable news sources, then it is general notability, but i don't see that either.. --Buridan (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person (I reserve calling someone "academic" for those who have at least finished their degrees, unlike this person). All the claims toward notability are unsubstantiated and there is a complete lack of reliable independent sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.