Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranju Gopal Barman

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranju Gopal Barman

[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)

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV as discovered in a WP:BEFORE search. The four sources currently in the article are:

1. A newspaper clipping in another language, assumedly Bengali, that I cannot easily translate without downloading it because it is an image

2. An interview

3. An interview

4. An error page (at least for me)

The article itself also gives off some WP:COI vibes, and is probably an WP:A7. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, India, and West Bengal. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and he worded as a marketing manager. Wow, long way from GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of the article moved it from draft namespace without a formal review. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, article doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV and Doesnt seem to pass WP:BIO and WP:BASIC either. I've done a quick search to see if I could find reliable sources or any significant coverage of him, and failed to. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Seems that he is a common researcher from India. Contributor008 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is poorly written and should have never been written. Catfurball (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This page showed up as a suggestion and I was surprised to see how this page was even published in the first place. Certainly deserves to be deleted as it does not offer any valuable information neither does the subject of the page seem to be a notable personality. Fanboyy1984 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable could be good for the subjects linked-in page VViking_TalkEdits 13:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Out of curiosity WaddlesJP13, why didn't you go the WP:A7 route for this?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I was going to go with A7 but I went with AFD just in case anyone found any sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉

Delete Don't think it falls into the category of 'notable.' Editingforgk (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a ton of new editors working on this article over the last few days since it was nominated, it's getting a lot of attention. Might be worth filing a case notice at SPI although the alleged sockpuppets could all disappear when this article is inevitably deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I created an SPI right after I declined the A7: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Subhadipchanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. This article is too short and reads like a resume. EmilySarah99 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2022 (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.