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. Consensus here is that the Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar articles do not confirm notability. J04n(talk page) 16:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhar Chatterjee (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)

The only credible thing this individual has done is start an online website. Sources are entirely primary (mostly interviews), with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Please note that he is not known as web designer so there is no claims of Web Designing. The child has developed an Ecommerce website and also appointed as CEO of the firm. Please go through newspaper articles carefully. If it was the case of only web designing, I would definitely not work for the article. If Wikipedia can consider designing website on Microsoft Frontpage notable as in case of Sreelakshmi Suresh, then this article definitely deserves a Wikipedia article. Sorry for being too sharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - <Most references are not reliable (see Abecedare (talk · contribs) comment below) and no claim of notability is given. TheMesquito^buzz 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - with media coverage in The Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar, I wouldn't be quite as quick to dismiss notability out of hand. The main problem, in my view, is that the article is extremely spammy and does not adequately summarize what reliable sources report, and as long as Sanjoy64 (Sanjoy Chatterjee?) edits that article, I don't think that will be significantly improved. Huon (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP | UPDATE Thanks Huon for your comment. I think this article is notable enough and also agree that content of thia article is not proper. However, please help us out in editing the article and I suppose it can be written in a more better way following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.Sanjoy64 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT I am not a strong editor and that might be the reason for the language used in the article. However, the citations and sources are many to judge the notability of the article. If editors can help significantly in improving the article it would be great. Sanjoy64 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP | REQUEST The article is open for any autoconfirmed user to edit. Please help us out in rewriting the article. Sanjoy64 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sanjoy64, please stop trying to impersonate other people when you sign your replies, you've done it in the past and have been warned for it and it only makes you look less credible. (for other viewers, Sanjoy signed his comments "WikiNest" instead of his own username, but I changed them back) Primefac (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to me this seems to be Sanjoy64 changing his signature, and there's technically no requirement that the signature include the username. However, when this leads to multiple "Keep" votes (except this isn't really a vote) in the same discussion, given under different names, it may look as if Sanjoy64 were trying to "stuff the ballot box". Thus I'd ask you, Sanjoy64, to not note additional comments on this page as "Keep" and to indicate at least here on this page that any further comments from you are from the same person who previously commented as "Sanjoy64". Thanks. Huon (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry guys, for my mistake. Please forgive me. I promise not to commit these sort of mistake again. Actually I did sign old comments by typing the whole code but did not knew the shortcode until Primefac tought me to do so via my talk page. Since the time I am using a Shortcode its showing up as "WikiNest". But now I have rectified it. I won't bother you much don't worry. I hope you forgive. Thank You Primefac, Huon, Kelapstick Sanjoy64 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please help in how can we improve this article. Your sincere help would be very thankful. Sanjoy64 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please help in editing the article. I have few more references like that of AIESEC which I will add shortly when they publish the report on their website. Sanjoy64 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable CEO with promotional language written by person with COI. This is BLP1E at best. Sanjoy, kindly wait until someone with no COI thinks your son is notable and writes about him. Note: I've struck the multiple keep !votes by the article creator as you are only allowed to !vote once. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject has attracted significant reliable source coverage (to write the Times of India off as unreliable is rather silly) and that is all that notability means on Wikipedia. You can argue that RS shouldn't have covered Chatterjee in depth, but they have, and we don't substitute our judgement of importance for that of RS. BLP1E obviously does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in some news story, not used as a catch all for "I don't like it" arguments. There isn't even an "event" here. Also, a COI is never a valid reason for deletion. Any tone problems resulting from the COI can be solved via normal editing. Pinging @Shirik: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still debating this one internally, but I'll have a comment here eventually. I accepted it at afc primarily for this reason - it is arguable that it does meet the notability threshold, and afc is not the place to unilaterally decide what is and is not notable. It was clearly not an A7 candidate and, as ThaddeusB points out, there are valid arguments to be made to suggest the notability threshold is met. I'll decide where I stand on the matter soon, but I do want to stress that while I may indeed come to agreement he is notable, my choice to accept the afc submission was not an indication that I believed the subject was notable; it was only because I believed it was arguable that he was notable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator and kikichugirl. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Special:Contributions/87.66.181.146 seems to be WP:canvassing regarding this case, and may be User:Sanjoy64 who is currently blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special:Contributions/201.191.161.243 also. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and Special:Contributions/186.176.25.207 and Special:Contributions/118.103.138.77 too. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see there's already been an SPI request in place since yesterday. I've updated it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice to recreation in neutral form by an unconnected editor. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Dweller's edits to the article, I withdraw my "Delete" !vote. (I'm not changing it to "Keep", though.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -The subject is minimally notable and from all of this banter you can clearly see there is a COI issue going on here. This is not going to stop because if the article does remain anyone who tries to edit it will continually be under attack by the subjects father. We know this is the father because of the message he left on a bureaucrats page [1]. The article is written like a promotional piece and would need to be revamped to start with. I say delete and let someone else start it back from the ground up and I would have no objection as long as it met notability guidelines. --Canyouhearmenow 11:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed some of the worst excesses of self-promotion, poor English, irrelevance and such like. There may be a stub article that can demonstrate notability here. Or there may not. But we shouldn't tolerate self-promotion even during an AfD. And socks should be reverted and blocked on sight. By the way, thank you for the notification at my talk page - see WP:BOOMERANG. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability has not been established in this article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Dweller has rewritten the article. All the above comments saying delete based on tone/COI or delete and start over can safely be ignored as they do not pertain to the current version of the article. Please try to focus on notability now. (The many reliable sources should establish notability - anyone saying otherwise must explain why they feel the sourcing is inadequate.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As has been discussed previous at WP:RSN local city supplements of Times of India (and other Indian newspapers) are not reliable sources. The two main sources cited in the article are the Vadodara-city sections of Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar and it is clear from reading those pieces too that they are essentially a write-up of the subject's biography as related by him and his family (this is typical for the metro sections). Lacking any independent reliable sources the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless anyone refutes User:Abecedare. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -I too agree with Abecedare. The sources do not bring us to any concrete conclusion of notability and seem to be nothing more than repeat biography that might I add has already been edited out of the disputed article. Seems we are going around in a circle over a matter that clearly fails WP:GNG. My decision will remain delete unless they can come up with some better sources than whats been provided. I have already done multiple checks and I fail to find any. --Canyouhearmenow 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant non-trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient reliable independent coverage of notability. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (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.