Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Sanjoy Mukherji

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sanjoy Mukherji[edit]

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

Yes there are references. Mostly self-published puffery. And what looks to me like a very minor award of some kind. Non-notable snake oil salesman, TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I very nearly nominated this for speedy, though I decided it does (just) pass A7. But the lack of gnews and normal search hits is a very strong indicator that this does not pass WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are articles from the Times of India, Economic Times and Bangalore Mirror that are all used as references but none of these are about Mukherji himself- he is merely providing opinion within these lifestyle topic advice articles. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. Although there are articles from reliable sources, these are not about the person in question, so can't be used to establish notability. In terms of good sources about him, there are none online or in the article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack enough media coverage to pass the notability. Fails WP:GNG --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG and this is promotional and full of WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; the sources- such as they are- do not directly address him as a topic, describe him in purely peripheral ways, and are in any case mostly not RS. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This largely falls under the guidelines on fringe theorists, which maybe need to be better written. If you adocate a fringe theory, we need well established sourcing on you, not just the reflections of people who accept the fringe theory, or short quotes in articles about the fringe theory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 29 April 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.