Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samar Chatterjee (2nd nomination)

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Chatterjee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable engineer fails WP:PROF, lack of reliable third party sources, creation and possible WP:AUTOBIO of SPA who hasn't edited since April 2010. Result last time was "no consensus" but article has not been improved since then. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Jonathan Wallace slightly cleaned up the article yesterday, by deleting a paragraph that violated not only BLP but also violated basic grammar and civility. The rest of the article is not much better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Original nominator failed to state a rationale for disregarding sources. There are lots of sources given to support this article and something needs to be said about them if the claim of "lack of reliable third party sources" is to stand. The article is bad and it may be an AUTOBIO of an SPA but if it the article's subject meets WP:GNG, and the statements in the article and sourcing seem to indicate that this biography does, then the article should remain. Blue Rasberry 09:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references are to primary source technical articles co-authored by him or written by others about the technical field in which he is interested (bridge failure). His is apparently a common name (shared by a Bollywood actor/director and others) but I wasn't able to find any third party newspaper or other coverage, awards etc. establishing notability in his field or in the political endeavors claimed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references seem to mostly be primary sources but I have not seen any of them because none are online. The way the article is written suggests that most of the articles say something about the article's subjects personal involvement in the topics discussed in the primary sources. Sources such as this one "Biography of Samar Chatterjee", SAFE Research Newsletter, SAFE Foundation, Washington, DC, September, 2009." suggest that the article's subject meets GNG. I also am unable to find any sources or verify that any of the cited sources exist, but without having some reason to believe that the given sources are not good I am going to WP:ASF. I wholeheartedly agree that having more sources and especially online sources would be helpful, but for me to consider deletion I would need someone to at least make an assertion that the given sources are bogus for some reason. Blue Rasberry 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Some primary sources are used, but it is not obvious to me why anyone would say that none of these sources are independent of the subject. Please elaborate on what you see wrong with any of these sources. As I understand, Wikipedia precedent is to keep articles with even one good source and these all seem good to me.

Khemani, P., "Life Profiles of Pioneer Batch: Indian Institute of Technology", E-Book, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, February, 2010.
Biography of Samar Chatterjee", SAFE Research Newsletter, SAFE Foundation, Washington, DC, September, 2009.
Sameera Khan, "Global Focus on Environmental Liabilities: Indian Industry Faces Cleanup Pressures," Business Insurance, October 2, 1995, page G1.
Editors, "The Integrated Steel Plants: Pollution Management Effective Solutions", The Economic Times Mumbai, June 5, 1996, The Indian Steel Supplement

Blue Rasberry 02:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAFE Foundation reference appears to be a self published source of the subject, see for example this page where he is listed as President, SAFE Foundation. The only ghits are apparently unrelated groups dealing with drug addiction and other matters. Both Economic Times and Business Insurance have archives and resources online and disclose 0 occurrences of his name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find your rationale compelling. Thanks for doing the research on this. This article has a lot of problems, with the biggest ones being that claims of notability are dubiously traced back to the article's subject in references and that other references do not purport to source any claims which would indicate notability. Blue Rasberry 10:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a little surprised that someone chooses to open ths can of worms all over again. As I said in the last discussion (same topic), we have chosen to keep bios of porn-stars who figure in Google searches, but since scholarly publications from a third-world contry don't, and neither does exemplary civil engineering work from the 1960's, again in a third world country, does not mean the person is not notable. It just means that the person is not enjoy the same high visibility. So change that to a stong keep. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refer to the talk pages as well: I did put up a note saying that I am currently working on the article. Also-also [:P] I have put an intermediate draft of my work. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not an issue of third world versus first world. There is a lack of verifiable third party sources in Indian media too. I was unable to confirm from their archives that Economic Times has any mention of him. Due to the apparent conflict of interest problem of the article creator, and the extraordinary unsourced claims made about his saving companies (and in the original version) being harassed and wrongly imprisoned by the U.S. government, we really need to confirm that he has ever been mentioned or discussed in a newspaper article or other source not under his immediate control. All of this discussion across two AFD nominations, and we still don't have one independent source. WP:PROF says, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Jonathanwallace is saying, Nshuks7. The issue is notability and verifiability. The claims which could indicate notability are both not verifiable and show some likelihood of bias. Were it not for this article's creation by a SPA and the dubious inclusion of a self-published source which does not indicate openly that the article's subject authored it, I might WP:AGF. There are lots of sources in this article but they are not about the article's subject; these are only his lifetime work products, and these are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If the article remains then still 80% of it would need to be deleted outright for irrelevance and the remaining 20% would be as best I can tell unverifiable or WP:OR.

India is more desperate for sexy media content than any other place in the world and I assure you that when Bollywood starts making porn that every performer India produces will have as much published biographical content as any other Indian celebrity, meaning more than any Indian civil engineer. It is perhaps unfair that the world publishes more about socialites than people who run the world, but this is a WP:V and WP:N issue and not a rich versus poor issue. Western civil engineers also live lives outside of third-party media commentary.

I support the idea of you keeping this in your sandbox in case a single verifiable claim to notability is discovered, but still keeping a page for this person would not include keeping all the bad content which is making up this page. Blue Rasberry 10:31, 22 February 2011 (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.