Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samar 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Chatterjee

Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Sushila Maru: It seems you are misinterpretting the Notability criteria. Please be specific. I do not believe that this article should be deleted. If you would like to address specific needs, please do so. We shall be happy to provide additional information that you can include in editing this article so that it is not deleted. I have a lot of problem wading thru the wiki instructions. Even the simple uploading of the photograph has been a problem, even though I have furnished all the info for licensing and copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushila69 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been following this article for a while and got some outside input on it's current content. After considering the sources and looking at the citations trail, my conclusion is this person does not pass WP:Prof - that is to say, he has not made a significant impact on his expert community. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May keep (49%) as a stub for the time being. This needs his contributions with noted wikis in his field of research.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost every substantive edit to this article has been from a single account (Sushila69) which has done no other editing inside Wikipedia. This editor seems to know an immense amount about the private life and pre-notable career of the article's subject - and has not provided references for any of that material. This STRONGLY suggests that this is a vanity article put up either by the subject himself or a close friend, colleague or relation. Given the borderline (at best) notability of the subject and the risks with articles about living persons, I have to err on the side of caution and recommend a 'Delete' - at least until/unless Sushila69 shows conclusively that he/she has no personal interest in the subject. Reducing the article to a stub containing only the directly referenced material is, perhaps, an acceptable alternative - but patrolling the article to ensure that it doesn't "grow back" would have to be undertaken by someone before I could agree to that course of action. SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable acheivement apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep An article isn't written in a day. I think all that the page needs is a list of notable awards/recognitions. Otherwise it's a good article, bio+work, better than most porn-actress BLPs I have seen so far. If you can keep those, this dude is an angel, researching nuclear waste recycling. Definite keep! Nshuks7 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (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.