Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atanu Bhuyan

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. ✗plicit 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atanu Bhuyan

[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)

Bhuyan is a journalist from North-East India who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources cited in the article constitute significant coverage; and a search on Google turned up no significant coverage either. There's a few mentions, largely quoting him or his tweets, but no actual in-depth discussion. Due to the lack of significant coverage, Bhuyan fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill coverage that most local journalists receive (a brief shout out in another article as a source, etc). Nothing I can find online shows me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source on the article and this one (which is not) together indicate notability to me. Mujinga (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: see WP:TOI. Also, the article in The Telegraph does not quite discuss the subject in detail, i.e. it is not significant coverage. Java Hurricane 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:TOI, doesn't change my opinion about an article in TOI about Bhuyan's resignation being significant coverage. Likewise, the Telegraph article is about Bhuyan entering politics and is significant coverage in my book.Mujinga (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it somewhat surprising that your views on significant coverage and RS seem to differ so significantly from what I've seen to be the community's attitude generally. Java Hurricane 02:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ToI article linked above entirely consists of his quotes. Telegraph's was routine election coverage (btw he decided later to not even contest in that election). Even hindi/bengali searches (https://www.google.com/search?q="অতনু+ভূয়ান"+OR+"अतनु+भुयान") don't turn up anything. I note that neither bengali nor hindi wikipedias have pages (hitting some bug, can't properly linkify the search link) --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond of controversy, he is not having any coverage. --Arunudoy (talk) 08:27, 5 January 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.