Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratap Chatterjee

article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and sources are out there, they just need to be added to the article. [1]
- The preceding comment is from Radioinfoguy.
- That's not a reliable source. It's his biography from the radio station which employs him. In all likelihood he wrote it himself. I'm having trouble finding any independent, reliable sources for this article. Pburka (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. –BuickCentury Driver 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty notable per third party sources and articles. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Pburka (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author and journalist. Dylan (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BIO insists that verifiable 3rd party references be present in the article. Not that we think they are out there, not that we think we've heard it somewhere. References have got to be there. This article has none. WP:BURDEN tells us that it's the editor who added the information's responsiblity to ensure that verifiable references are there and any information without verifiable references must be removed, particularly in the case of living persons. If other editors wish to step in and add these references, that's great too, but assuming there are 3rd party references available isn't enough.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I think you misunderstand WP:BIO. That guideline sets out guidelines for determining whether a topic is notable, which is not a temporary property: a subject is and will always be notable, or it is not. References are evidence as to notability, not the notability in and of itself. A subject can be notable without having references supporting that assertion, which is what the case is here, in my opinion. Dylan (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Googlenews. References should be added to article. Part of the problem here is that with dozens of articles on Indian topics listed for deletion in the past week, interested and knowledgable users haven't had a chance to improve the articles. Other users, for reasons which remain unclear, are simply listing dozens of articles for deletion with no effort to investigate or improve them. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those news articles are by the subject. Journalists are notoriously difficult to find references to on Google news, since their name appear in bylines so often. Pburka (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]