Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parth Naria

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. Per WP:SNOW, no use in dragging this out. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Naria

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

Makes sort-of credible claims of significance, but none are borne out by the provided refs, and I can't find others. —SMALL JIM 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -looks like all the references are added for the count. Couldn't find any coverage for this person, fails WP:BASIC —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even mentioned in any of the sources given. Although the article does seem to attempt to make claims of significance, it doesn't even come close to articulating them so I wonder if it doesn't qualify for WP:A7 speedy deletion. Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7 was removed by a suspected sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parth Naria. Bazj (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Narcissistic 14 year old. [1] Bazj (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was made by himself. I should say it was made "by a user with the same name as him", but it's, it's him. Also, only one of the sources links to anything about him, the rest are just homepages of TED and NASA.

Also "He is the recipient of the NASA" that was hilarious holy shit. you guys we can't delete this guy he recieved NASA. he owns NASA now Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reason this isn't A7 right now is because of the blatant socking. GAB^Hello! 17:58, 19 March 2016 (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.