Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapan Debnath

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 speedy delete. Given the creator's lengthy list of deleted articles and the fact that this is a WP:BLP with minimal content or contributions by others, I'm going to accept this as a G5, with no prejudice to recreation by any non-sanctioned editor. RL0919 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan Debnath

[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)

Was speedied "{{speedy deletion-blocked user}}", but has been has been re-edited 11 times since by other people, Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmmm. I was the one who added the CSD G5 tag yesterday, after I found this article in the back of the NPP queue, where it sat since May 14. My impression, from looking at the page history, was that none of the edits subsequent to the page's creation qualify as "substantial edits". Several of them added various maintenance tags, a couple re-filled bare URLs using reFill, another added some categories, and another added a wikilink. I still feel that these are not substantial edits, either individually or cumulatively, and that the page still qualifies under WP:G5. However, if that is determined not to be the case, then the page should be kept since the subject is notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a minister of a province. Nsk92 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation by blocked user, without prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing. There are sometimes real reasons (copyright issues, extreme BLP violations, denial of attribution to banned editors, etc.) why even notable topics can have their articles deleted and then restarted from scratch under the WP:TNT principle, and this article is not so well-written that deleting it would be losing good work — deleting it doesn't mean he can never have an article, it just means the banned user isn't allowed to retain credit as its author. And no, none of the followup editors have added any substantive content that would change the issue — every edit after the article's creation was strictly maintenance or formatting cleanup, and the article's actual content is substantively unchanged from the original creation. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (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.