Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit K Dasgupta


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rohit K Dasgupta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's subject does not seemed to have passed any new notability criteria than when it was last discussed at AfD Articles_for_deletion/Rohit_K._Dasgupta. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG, in my opinion. This article about the subject in The Times of India and these two in the Calcutta Telegraph would represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond that, the subject is a prolific author of academic texts for which Google Scholar is full of citations and reviews.  A  Train talk 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of references and appears notable to me. Egaoblai (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm less familiar with UK politics than I should be - how big of a position is a councillor? He only got 1,965 votes, and it doesn't appear anyone ran against him (three candidates ran for three spots.) It appears he fails WP:NPOL. I haven't looked to see if he passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. There have been a couple feature articles on his losing candidacy, but the articles are actually about him, which makes WP:GNG pretty borderline. I typically would vote delete in this situation if he only had a political notability claim, but will leave this for now in case he's a notable professor. SportingFlyer  talk  05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This person isn't included or excluded by WP:NPOL; the London Assembly would be the body whose members are presumed notable. I'm not convinced either way regarding GNG; are there any articles about his academic research?  I'm always skeptical of articles such as  about low-level candidates where the only claim of notability is being a member of a diaspora running for office. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per A Train passes WP:GNG and a member of the London Assembly  London Borough of Newham and  H index  taken in combination do think he scrapes through GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not a member of the London Assembly, they're a member of the council of the London Borough of Newham, which is a more-local body. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UT


 * Keep. Article could use some work, but passes WP:GNG. It's possible he passes WP:ACADEMIC too, looking at citing patterns of his work: 1, 2. Basie (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems like there are several reliable independent sources that reference the topic, and this person has done several things that have been mentioned in many different online newspapers and such. I would definitely say it passes WP:GNG.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG - borderline as an academic, borderline as a politician, but all together clearly notable. Daask (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While his H-index seems a bit on the low side for WP:NACADEMIC, this is also a rather specialized area in which he's working and I could see it would be reasonable it is high enough to pass the guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.