Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaunak 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. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Chakraborty

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. References include Google search and an alternative Wikipedia - neither of which are acceptable or reliable secondary sources. Another, whilst in Hindi, appears to be just the lyrics to one of his poems (nothing else). Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:author. Whenever I see a a user that is only interested in editing one article, I am a little suspicious of WP:COI So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - no independent, reliable sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Deletion as there is no such strong source is available at this time but Wikipedia can suggest that from where I can get the proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnubh (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Jonnubh (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Annoimot (talk · contribs). [reply]

Comment If no such sources exist, then the subject doesn't meet the requirements to be included in the encyclopedia. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Literally everything that could potentially be challenged requires a strong third-party source (newspapers, news magazines, book reviews). Onus is on you to provide those sources, and if they don't exist, the article cannot be kept. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete I don't think that this article should delete, the deletion request should be remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.176.23 (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC) — 106.207.176.23 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Annoimot (talk · contribs). [reply]

Comment Okay, but why should we keep this article? You have not provided a valid reason. StormContent 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that at least half of the sources are Google search results tells me that there's really no "there" there. The other two sources I can assess (Refs 2 and 4 are identical) are a barebones profile listing and a Goodreads blurb that I'm fairly certain was written by the author or someone on his behalf. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I've waited a couple days for the article creator to find RS indicating notability for this teenaged writer; could probably have been speedied. Strong whiff of sockpuppetry from the two "keep" posts above. Wikipedia is not the place to launch your writing career. Donutron (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the given reference are of google search results. Other also not reliable.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 07:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not DeleteHe is having more than 6000 followers in his facebook page https://www.facebook.com/shaunakchakrabortyofficial so this article should not delete. Disagree with this deletion request. Shivangi646 (talk) — Shivangi646 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Annoimot (talk · contribs).

That argument is useless as we don't accept Facebook followers (which can be bought) as evidence of notability. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a SPI has been initiated into suspicious editing behaviour on this page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/uttarakhand-upcoming-book-of-shaunak-chakraborty/article_6f1b909c-c28c-11e8-be1f-4f8d56db3bc8.html Shivangi646 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — Shivangi646 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Annoimot (talk · contribs). [reply]

That link is virtually content-free, and explicitly noted to have been contributed by a user of the site as opposed to a serious journalist or book reviewer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This diff is particularly illuminating. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 2 October 2018 (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.