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. Mostly (but not exclusively) per the detailed analysis of the references by DGG. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipayan Ghosh[edit]

Dipayan Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no third party evidence of 1notability -- the references are almost entirely his own blog entries. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. is reliable for the facts of his degree, but does not show notability .
  2. the various 30 under 30 lists have been generally considered to mean might be notable some day, this is a WSJ article about one of their lists.
  3. he wrote this himself
  4. press release from his university
  5. announcement about a lecture
  6. directory listing
  7. interview, where he says what he wants
  8. another 30 under 30 from Forbes.
  9. he wrote this one (
  10. publication by his work group
  11. ditto
  12. ditto
  13. announcement about a talk he gave he gave
  14. publication from his workgroup
  15. ditto
  16. ditto
  17. ditto
  18. ditto
  19. ditto
  20. mere mention -- Politico (20)
  21. another mere mention -- Politico
  22. announcement for a panel he was on
  23. another writeup by Forbes
  24. announcement for a panel he was on
  25. anther announcement
  26. summary of a panel he was on
  27. promotional bio from associated organization

The net result is three 30 under 30 write-ups from Forbes. Agreed, they like him. Is this enough for notability? The WSJ is duplicating Forbes, Politico is notices, publishing thru the White House is not notability. New America is not independent; cornell is an announcement. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once someone is notable, we can describe what they wrote, but depending on the nature of what they wrote it may or may not show them notable. Writing position papers for a government agency in general does not show notability, unless they have provable great impact. "notability " does not apply to the content of an article, but it does apply to deciding whether woe should have an article. (And, even sos, many of the mentions and minor papers listed in WP articles are not significant content and should be removed, depending on context. There are several hundred thousand over-promotional bios in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia standards, whether we look at the GNG or cross-examine similar pages. Several reputed and independent sources have covered the subject’s opinions or profiled him. Earlier, I did not expand on why I think DGG’s statements about the references’ independence are untrue, but to look more closely at some of DGG’s claims: to say that [7] is simply “an interview where he says what he wants” ignores that this was with a reporter employed by a reputed, independent news source that has quoted him in other articles, too. In another example, [14] and [18] are not “publications by his group,” but instead clearly list him alongside other noted “public policymakers” who were interviewed by the U.S. Departments of Education and Commerce for guidance, signaling notability. The Politico references (we only included two but there are more), are not just passing mentions because Politico described something happening to the subject. [24-26] are obviously not “announcements” or “summaries” of panels. They are independent news reports that discuss things the subject said at major public meeting with other senior participants including an attorney general. Because of these gaps, it seems DGG’s nomination contradicts the Wikipedia stated policy. Page clearly seems to pass GNG. Climate7298 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 28 June 2017 (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.
More