Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandeep Bamrah

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. He just earned his MBA, apparently on his 18th birthday. Getting a master's degree at a young age is a mild assertion of notability, and sources (including the BBC) confirm it's true, but is this guy really notable enough for an encyclopedia article? Will anyone remember him in two years? I think not and say delete. Angr (t • c) 11:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 53 Ghits--Jusjih 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after merging a short comment plus a BBC cite into MBA article. Interesting MBA fact is worth recording, but I don't think he warrants an individual article yet. Abstain from whether there should be a redirect. Paddles 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with deleting this article. This person warrants an encyclopedia entry. This is an amazing achievement; of 6 billion people, how many have completed high school? This individual completed postgraduate studies before even being able to vote or drink! Stories like this need to be told to inspire today’s youth. Educators, athletes and politicians worldwide are always encouraging today’s youth to stay in school. They need stories such as these to provide motivation and inspiration. According to these sources, Nandeep himself was inspired to complete a university degree after hearing of other exceptional feats. What if he had not heard about them? It would be an injustice to deprive people access to this article. Not only do I think this, but so do my friends, family, colleagues, and others whom I have shown this article. Furthermore, major media outlets such as the BBC agree! This Wikipedia site alone links to newspapers on three different continents in several languages! With all the other rubbish on the Internet, even considering removing this article is an outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

• Comment WP is an encyclopedia, not a repository for inspiring stories. Similarly, it is not a platform for pushing agendas, even ones such as "stay in school" that are generally considered worthy. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end. Paddles 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after merging per Paddles. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Teke 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep upon reconsidering; we kept the real Michael Tang. Teke 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Contested PROD? Who is contesting it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Perhaps you don't understand. A "prod" is a proposal for deletion without discussion. If someone who thinks the article should be kept deletes the "prod" tag, they are contesting the deletion - a contested prod. If someone else still thinks the article should be deleted then it it becomes an "article for deletion" (AfD) where there is discussion and hopefully a consensus. For this particular article, the person that removed the PROD (i.e. contested it) is User:70.29.104.24 - that would be you. Paddles 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records. I would delete the Michael Tang article as well Bwithh 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought PROD stood for Prodigy. en·cy·clo·pe·di·a Audio pronunciation of "Encyclopedia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pd-) n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. (Dictionary.com)

How does this article go against that? I cannot understand why people would contest this article, especially when we are discussing a positive, inspiring story. There has to be a sanity check; serial murderers are in Encylopedia entries. Just because they have killed dozens, does that make them more "worthy" than positive stories?

What makes serial murderers more encyclopedia-worthy than Mr Bamrah is not their actions, but the notoriety they achieve through their actions. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, and Albert Fish garnered tons of press at the time and even now are objects of morbid fascination for thousands of people. Mr Bamrah you read about in the newspaper, think "Well, good for him!" and then promptly forget again. They aren't better than he is, but they're definitely more notable. Angr (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying Angr's point: Bundy was executed almost 30 years ago. How many people can you remember as getting their college degrees as teenagers three decades ago? How about ONE decade ago? B.Wind 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote to Keep. I came to this article via another article, because it interested me and I wanted to know more. The article as it stands could be expanded, but it doesn't mean it isn't interesting. - 80.229.165.51 11:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) user jb something, but I can't remember my damn password or the exact way I spelled my username.[reply]

"Amplifying Angr's point: Bundy was executed almost 30 years ago. How many people can you remember as getting their college degrees as teenagers three decades ago? How about ONE decade ago? B.Wind 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"

That is partially my point -- how many people earned their MBA as teenagers within the last three decades? Or within the last decade? Only this person! I vote to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.104.24 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. A cool personal achievement, and possibly a hint of future notability, but not worth an encyclopedia article totally by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. ScottW 01:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable achievement, imho and is also verifiable from reputed sources. Should stay. --Gurubrahma 11:49, 3 June 2006 (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.