Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathmandu Selfie

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 redirected to Prakash Sayami. The contribution history is still available; no objection to merging the content to the redirected article, and no objection to the creator trying again in draft space and this time going through the WP:AFC review process rather than unilaterally moving an unsuitable draft to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Selfie[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough information to satisfy book notability. Google search for Kathamandu Selfie finds advertisements for book, and this article in Wikipedia, but no reviews or third-party mentions, and this article does not provide any mention that can be followed up to find sources.

Already draftified once and moved by author to article space. (Moving to draft space a second time would be move-warring.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had started the article and I shifted it to main space after adding references. @Robert McClenon Please search in Nepali Language with काठमाण्डू सेल्फी.nirmal (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If it has been moved out of Draft once without effective reassume to correct the problems over sources, then it must be a deleted. No effective reference. scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-drafify the article still needs work and I'm going to WP:AGF that there are sources in reliable non-English sources. But it needs the effort of editors who know, otherwise it shouldn't be re-created. Archrogue (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prakash Sayami. Can't find much at all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prakash Sayami: Scope creep, Archrogue, Usedtobecool, Robert McClenon what do you think about a redirect? The article is mostly opinion, so I won't vote merge, but I think it's a possible search term so I think a redirect is the best outcome. There is plenty of room in the author article for expansion if sources can be found. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Merge and redirect aren't that different; there are cases where they end up being the same. To me, in this case, a merge means adding "A collection of essays title Kathmandu Selfie was published in 2015^[1]" or therebouts. The target article is exceedingly poor with next to no verification (or RS); so even this one sentence with its independent RS would be a massive improvement, IMO, which is the complete reason my !vote says merge and not redirect. Closers rarely require this hashed out, to make their decision. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Nirmaljoshi - By telling a reviewer what to search for, you are insulting the reviewers by dumping poorly researched pages into article space and expecting the reviewers to finish the job. It is the responsibility of the author to provide an article that provides useful information to the reader without having to search in two languages. Do not insult the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robert McClenon Please guide me to the location where it is written that only the starting author is the sole responsible for the article? Isnt wiki a collaborative platform? nirmal (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is better to have a search term than not to have one. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ekantipur.com/32/2015/08/28/20150828182547.html

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.

[1] ttps://ekantipur.com/32/2015/08/28/20150828182547.html

[1]