Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratap Chatterjee

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 keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment You are correct that references provide evidence of notability. The references in this article do not provide convincing evidence of notability. Has this journalist received any awards or other honors that could be more easily referenced with a 3rd party?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:40, 21 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]
Keep I think the radio station bio is a sufficiently reliable source, it is basically KPFA and Pacifica speaking. The question here would be its independence, and thus how much it might go toward proving notability. But it's not really necessary for notability, which is mainly based on things available from other sources. However, it is useful in writing an article on him as it does take some work finding sources. It is reasonably independent, as he does not run the station. Perhaps less independent is this bio, where he holds a higher position, but still reasonably reliable and not making any extravagant assertions. The same question came up recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pollard, see DGG's comments at the end. Since Pollard runs his institute, it was even a harder case. Here's some biographical info from the Lannan foundation, which gave Chatterjee an award. This flyer has a pic, as does this NY Times ad by that foundation. There's also some data here and at one of his publishers.John Z (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Employer or worse self written biographies are not sufficiently reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability tells us "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons"--Rtphokie (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Rtphokie is absolutely right on these sources, except that an employer-written source should be sufficiently reliable to prove the subject's employment by that employer (but nothing else). - Dravecky (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1)The KPFA bio is not a self-published source by the usual meaning. Look at the earlier AfD I referred to. 2) In any case, SPS is OK, even for BLP, if it's by the person himself WP:V says "as third-party sources" - he isn't a third party. See WP:BLP, sections 3.1 and 3.3.John Z (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Don't ignore the final point, "the article is not based primarily on such sources," since before I added a few third-party sources this article was indeed based primarily on those self-published sources. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the author of three books and a journalist. Subject is frequently interviewed by national newspapers, magazines, and television programs as an expert in his field. Google searches are actually hampered by how often his name appears in print. Even so, I have found a few useful sources that go to verifiability and notability and added them to the article. (I must say I was quite surprised to find a long argument over the kind of sourcing that would be acceptable while the article in question had precisely zero in-line citations. Fix it, then argue about it, folks.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is more than confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (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.