Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suman Chakraborty


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suman Chakraborty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails Notability (academics). The subject has written nothing of note, and the only books have been self-published - he declares here that he is the "executive editor" of Roman Books the publisher of his two books. He doesn't even appear to have an academic post.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: But it probably meets Notability. Notable, since most of the sources in 'See Also' section confirms the claims made in the article. Most of them are secondary sources, for example the newspaper review and the conference programme. He may be the executive editor of the publication that publishes his own books, but the books seem to be major publications. It is also unclear whether he himself is the owner of the publication. This is what I found from my search from the review page of an indepedent New Delhi bookseller. User:Hi_Shakespeare 18:27, 3 September 2008 (IST)
 * Hi_shakespeare has a total of 3 edits. Two to another article's AFD that is by the same author, which is believed to be a SOCK.  I suspect this is a sock as well.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(i) First of all, I would like to thank the wikipedia administrators for their time. If the article is not according to the wikipedia standard, it should be deleted. But I think there are few other things which need to be taken into consideration before deletion. (ii) Many administrators are concerned thinking that I am a sock of Hi_Shakespeare or Kumkum_creative. We know each other and are good frineds. We are all new to wikipedia and the article on Suman Chakraborty was my debut article. We three know Mr. Chakraborty very well as he is known to a number of Indian students like us. After I had created the article on Suman Chakraborty kumkum also created an article on his book. (iii) Many administrators are concerned about the notability of Mr. Chakraborty. I would just like to add few points. In India the majority of the people including academics (especially people of arts and humanities) are not computer literate. There are a few number of libraries which have online catalogues. In this situation if a person tries to search the notability of a person located in India in thw web, I believe it won't be a proper method to understand the notability. Simultaneously there are also language and spelling probelems. For example Suman Chakraborty can also be spelled as Sumon Chakravorty or Suman Chakroborty or Suman Chakraborti. Mr. Chakraborty has a number of articles in Bengali magazines and newspapers, but none of them have an online database, so that they could be linked to the Wikipedia article to prove the notability. (iv) It is true that Mr. Chakaraborty has self-published his two books. Since we know him well, we also know that they are one of the leading printers of Kolkata and have a well-known business network. Mr. Chakraborty looks after it personally. Who will go to find a publisher if one owns a printing and publishing network? (iv) Finally, I believe it is the responsibility of any encyclopedia to turn the world into a global village. Internet has made it possible to fetch information from different parts of the world in a single click. An article can easily be removed from Wikipedia for non-notability, but simultaneously the world is not known about that article, because wikipedia administrators have failed to gather proper information due to India's low-level internet users. (v) Thanks again for your time. You are welcome to delete my article on Suman Chakraborty or Suman Mukherjee, who is also known to me. Deleting an article in Wikipedia does make no difference. Without these articles on one hand, Wikipedia won't become less popular, and on the other hand these people will also not become less-notable in the cultural world of West Bengal. 5 September 11:16am (IST)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Professor who is no more notable than any other marginally published professor.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable. I had previously suggested this article should be deleted in the deletion debate for his book. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ecclesiastes 1:2. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brother Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC
 * Clarification from wikiusernew: Since I created this article, I believe it is my responsibility to clarify a few details.
 * Will respond on Wiki's talk page.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am somewhat sympathetic to the cultural bias considerations put forward by User:Wikiusernew. That being said, one still needs some verifiable (rather than hypothetical) evidence of notability for passing WP:PROF. Such evidence is not available or at least it has not been presented here. The two books mentioned in the article are not yet listed in WorldCat, presumably because they are very new, and correspondingly no evidence that these books are widely carried by academic libraries. I could not find any reviews of them in academic journals either. There is no other substantial evidence of the subject's research having made significant impact in the field, as required by WP:PROF. As pointed out above by others, almost nothing in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. I looked in Scopus and JSTOR and could not find anything relevant there. Note, however, that there is a physicist/engineer with the same name. If there are some sources that cite his work that are not fished out by these searches, it is necessary for the keep proponents to find and present them. As things stand, does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks clarification, verifiability (appropriate, external sources), etc. Is this notable? It seems like no/lacking substantial evidence has bene carried out by academic libraries. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2008 (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.