Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Charan Mukherjee

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 is that given the issues raised with what they say, sourcing is insufficient for biographic notability Star Mississippi 02:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Charan Mukherjee[edit]

[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)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage consists of articles either lacking depth or from non-reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and West Bengal. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, sources that deal with him in depth do not appear to be independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBIO AND WP:GNG. Mukherjee was one of the main architects of Windows, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Visual Studio, and others, and there are many other sources that can be included. If you are still concerned about insufficient notability and not enough sources, draftify instead to allow these issues to be resolved. Before considering deletion, you need to be aware that many users are not comfortable with MrsSnoozyTurtle's overzealous draftifying and deleting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. MrsSnoozyTurtle nearly got a topic ban for doing so. Olduvandem (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true then the article shouldn't have to rely on hagiographic press articles (which read like press releases) for its sources. Mukherjee should have been covered in the many books on Microsoft that have been published by major publishers. Has he? And, for the record, I am one of the people who is "not comfortable with MrsSnoozyTurtle's overzealous draftifying and deleting". That doesn't mean that every single deletion nomination she makes is unjustified, whether by chance or by design. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is explicitly listed in WP:PROF as an example of the kind of selective and honorary level of membership that automatically passes WP:PROF#C3. This article is actually in significantly better shape than many of our old stubs for IEEE Fellows. In addition, He is mentioned on Microsoft alumni Network (https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=1625&sparam=Search&scontid=0#Mukherjee) and on Marquis Millennium Magazine, (http://marquismillennium.com/10th_Ed/Mukherjee/234/)" 1OA9 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for the IEEE fellowship? The Marquis Millennium Magazine that you link only says that he is a member, rather than a fellow, and Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source, so I doubt that the magazine from the same publisher and based on it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems like a usual engineer. Most of the articles that are used as references and the ones i found are all UGC.--Editingforgk (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean user-generated content? Please don't use abbreviations for things that might not be obvious to other people in the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can agree that the person is not as notable as some of us (Wikipedia editors) would like to him to be. However, at the same time, he is not just another engineer, as he is regarded as an industry expert. Furthermore, my search has led me to some credible platforms, which are:

1.https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-pioneers-say-chatgpt-bing-and-bard-will-push-creativity-take-over-mundane-jobs-so-that-humans-can-do-better-8453549/ 2. https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=1625&sparam=Search&scontid=0#Mukherjee 3. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/krishna-c-mukherjee-continues-advance-182930901.html 4. https://www.iitkgpalumnifoundation.in/newsroom/news/Krishna-C-Mukherjee-has-changed-the-computing-landscape.dz 5. https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=1625&sparam=Search&scontid=0#Mukherjee (I believe, it can be used as a WP:PRIMARY, in this case.)

Moreover, it can be argued that his notability would increase with respect to time. I would propose that a thorough cleanup is done and apply WP:CHANCE here. Also, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. 24GT (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best of those sources is the first, but it says that Mukherjee started at Microsoft in 1988 and is "known for laying the groundwork for the architecture and design of the Windows operating system...". This is obviously wrong, as Windows came out before 1988, so we can't trust the source. I ask once again, if he was so crucial to Microsoft then is he covered in the many independent books that have been published about that company? And would we really expect the notability of a so-called pioneer who joined Microsoft 35 years ago to increase over time? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Windows was first released in 1985, (v1.0) however, the article doesn't say anything about which version of windows has he helped/assisted/developed the ground work of. In the fordes article(https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodberger/2022/12/21/legacies-in-technology-forged-from-family-and-culture/?sh=636cb3933567) he has expressed working on API of Windows v3.0. He further states that the idea of API was there, however, he was the one who built the API to integrate various applications. Therefore, the first source is reliable, and not wrong.

As for if he is crucial to Microsoft or has he been published in any independent books... that is something to look into, this is why, I have suggested WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. 24GT (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 24GT. It seems that you are misunderstanding WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH (which are just essays, by the way). The former is directed towards stub articles. The latter is where people are arguing for deletion because an article is in a poor state.

Therefore, I don't think that either of these applies here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @MrsSnoozyTurtle, it was my understanding that we don't delete page/s, just because they are in poor state. I see the potential of increasing notability of the subject. Hence, I think, its better to place this article in stub rather than to delete.

I respect your opinion, however, above is my own opinion... admin can decide on his/her own. Regards. 24GT (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 24GT, but if the claim is made that someone laid "the groundwork for the architecture and design of the Windows operating system" that means the Windows operating system itself, not a particular version. The source is simply wrong, so cannot be trusted. The Forbes article that you link is from a contributor, with the proviso (click on the information symbol by his name) that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". Those have been dismissed by WP:RSN as generally unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its alright. Thank you for your share. 24GT (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:CHANCE the article can be kept as a stub and be allowed to enhance the notability rather than being deleted.

He is a Notable Software Engineer, with notable contributions to the said field, moreover, he is a published author at IEEE. (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37086444458) Considering WP:BARE the article has slight notability to stay up as he has contributed to the field and a few citations can be enough for bare notability.

Information can be cut short with regards to lack of credible citations and the article can be kept as stub considering WP:USEFUL as the information placed here can be useful for the community.MarkJustice54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link to IEEE shows one conference paper with no citations to it, of which Mukherjee was one of four authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2023 (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.