Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaskar 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. Third party sources would have been helpful here... if they exist I will consider undeleting. W.marsh 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaskar Chakraborty

Bhaskar Chakraborty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only references are self-published books. I do not believe this is noteworthy in and of its self. Shoessss 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, This books are not self published. We will include the names of publishers very shortly. Please dont delete this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy.das (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 May 2007

• Delete This is an unsourced list of weasel words ("highly acclaimed and deserve a permanent place") -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shoessss Sanjoy.das (talk · contribs) you I think are the author of the article, surely there are some reviews or discussions of his work, and you can add them. Even if not in English. (but it helps to give an English translation of a key phrase)DGG 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, with a number of different publishers, it is hard to assume that they are all self published. world cat: Bhaskar Chakraborty appears to have a number of valid hits. I am almost certain that OCLC 17153902 is the "Raaste Aabaar" mentioned on the article. Notice the number of libraries that hold this book. Unless someone does the due diligence reqd to verify these works are self-published, we should assume these rest of these works are also notable, and this Afd should be speedy closed. John Vandenberg 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Happy to change to keep if notability can be established with sources, which I suspect is possible by someone familiar with the subject. I hope the author of the article makes efforts to improve it. Russeasby 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't believe the crucial issue is whether the books are self published but whether they have drawn any critical interest, won prizes etc. It's hard to believe that one could publish this many books without critical attention, but nothing is shown. Given the lack of references and meaningful content, as well as the non-neutrality of what we do have, I think deletion is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2007 (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.