Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajitabh Bose

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. While the arguments made by non-socks/meats largely favor deletion, the margin also makes it safe to err on the side of caution at the alleged request by the subject, themselves, to delete the article. slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajitabh Bose

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

I'm not speedying this because there is what is possibly a world record holder for the most insignificant "claim to notability". Essentially this is WP:NOTNEWS; coverage for one human interest story does not constitute real notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains enough resources/refrences which justifies the notability of the article. The references includes big newspapers like Hindustan Times, New Delhi Times and The Avenue Mail. It also include references from one of the biggest Indian News Channel, which is India TV. —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a national recorder and has published the SMALLEST LOVE STORY BOOK. It is quite amazing and worthy enough to be in Wikipedia. 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

He is also a renowned film maker.

Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that this event qualifies as "highly significant", and there don't appear to exist any sources that cover anything else about this person that is also notable. If I missed something, or if there are sources that show otherwise, please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to main article space. and draft and userfy until there's more of an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has good number of references to denote his notability. And his book's article (The Pocket Love Story) is also available on Wikipedia. TheNewLog talk 09:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is about as trivial an accomplishment as I can find on Wikipedia. We are not a web host for every author. He got in the news for one cycle. I don't see any significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was changed by 163.47.141.50 (possible WP:VAND). I'm changing the vote back to the statement submitted by Bearian. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearian - Are you referring to the references cited within the article? I believe that all I saw were references about the record itself, and not so much about the book or the author himself - not enough to signify significant coverage. But I want to ask you about the sources you saw in case I missed something :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC) - Striking out, as I didn't notice that Bearian's vote was modified until just now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one other point that has yet to be mentioned that this article was deleted six months ago for lack of notability. While additional citations have been provided, I think Bearian's comments make the most cogent argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be nice if I !voted. The rationale is in my comment above. One last thing. This editor has been attempting to go through AfC with this article since March. See those discussions HERE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have to chuckle at the optimistic exuberance of Indian editors sometimes. The "world record" is hilarious. The book article probably also needs to go.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably??? I think you mean certainly. The ludicrous book is now also at afdTheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, I have no idea who has written this article but kindly don't refer my book as "The ludicrous book". Have some respect for the people. I would request Wikipedia to remove this article as soon as possible. It is highly humiliating for me to hear this comments for my book. Thank you. Ajitabha Bose (Chairperson, Bose Documentaries Ltd.)

Keep. Although the article is written very poorly with tall claims, it is a fact that the person is notable and has published books. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have cleaned up the article a bit and removed mention of the award which itself is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: you've made the article even less notable now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2015 (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.