- 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. Missvain ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Amitava Nag
Edit conflict article moved to Amitava Nag
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Amitava Nag ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
References do not show the notability of the subject. Advertisement. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV GermanKity ( talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There was an edit conflict - at the same time of this AfD nom, I was moving this page to Amitava Nag before reviewing it, Having looked at the artile I do agree with the nominator and recommend Delete JW 1961 Talk 13:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not seeing evidence of notabilty. The cited sources all report what Nag himself has written or said. Maproom ( talk) 14:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very weak keep - There are too many primary sources, and the descriptions of his books are written like personal essays and need to be edited, but there are a handful of reviews suggesting his body of work as a film writer just barely meets the notability threshold. I also found this [ [1]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very weak delete Too many strange sources, not really proving notability at all. However, I am not extremely opposed to the keeping of this article. It seems there is some sort of possible notability to be found here. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I have not taken a deep enough dive looking for sources myself to comment on notability, but I have had to remove copyright volations from the article (and revdeleted the history of course) – wholesale copy-pastes, and some close paraphrasing. For the remaining text, I was unable to find a source of copying, but it nevertheless has multiple hallmarks of infringement. Coupling this with the copying I did find, leads me to the conclusion that the remaining text is likely a copyright violation as well. I cannot be sure, but that where-there's-smoke-there's-likely-fire probability analysis is the risk always run when one engages in this conduct.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG and note concerns re: copyright above. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did wonder how one went about fixing the capitalisation/edit conflict issue... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 17:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.