This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to West Bengal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|West Bengal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to West Bengal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to India.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/West Bengal/archive

Mohini Mohan Dhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No in-depth coverage of the subject in reference, references given in this article are mostly pdf with just mentions of him, hence I think it fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator. I have added the references to the talk page of the article and explained a bit about what they are. In addition the editor of this article has a history of trying to add in Family Members. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sigcov in at least three reliable sources.

Noah ^💬 23:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable civil servant/administrator. If he had made significant contributions to the legal field as claimed in the article, it would have been possible to find at least some trace of it somewhere, but I'm not able to do that – and that's the only claim to notability in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:ROTM functionary, Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article on Rudraneil Sengupta does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, as it lacks adequate independent and reliable sources to substantiate the subject's significance. While the article attempts to document his career and achievements, it is insufficiently supported by verifiable evidence from secondary sources providing substantial coverage of his life and work.

Of the references cited in the article, only the first citation meets the criteria for a reliable source. The rest of the references merely mention Sengupta in passing, failing to offer independent or in-depth analysis of his contributions. This is not enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which require significant, independent coverage from credible sources.

A quick Google search further confirms the lack of independent coverage. Most search results are either related to Sengupta's published works or are affiliated with organizations he has worked for. There is no significant independent recognition or detailed media coverage, which is essential to meet notability guidelines.

The article also claims that Sengupta has received awards such as the Ramnath Goenka Award and the SOPA Award, but these claims are not supported by verifiable sources within the article or by any independent third-party confirmation. Without proper citations, such assertions cannot be deemed reliable or sufficient to demonstrate his notability.

Much of the content appears to be derived from primary sources or editorialized interpretations of his career. Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies require that biographical content rely on independent, third-party sources to ensure reliability.

In conclusion, this article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and standards for Reliable Sources. As a result, I am nominating this article for deletion. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG based on available sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Two of the five citations have URLs that go to top level pages, not pages that mention Sengupta. The other three citations are primary sources. There are a couple of statements in the article that are not supported by citations. I've added inline cleanup tags to assist the creator of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article fails notability and significant coverage. Pizzaonpineapple (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Businesspeople. Pizzaonpineapple (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete The individual who created this article submitted it multiple times before they were auto confirmed, and multiple times it was declined for not being Notable. The individual did not just suddenly become notable because the editor of the article became auto confirmed. The individual in this article does not show any notability to speak of. Not only should the article be deleted but WP:Salted as well.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt – to quote my own reviewer comment at the draft: The sum of the information about him is as follows: He has notable relatives (that does not make him notable), he has self-published a number of books (which does not make him notable), he has had minor roles in a few TV shows (not something that makes him notable), he has donated to charitable causes, and he has a website. Neither of which is a criterion for notability. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield any independent sources. And the discussion at Draft talk:Vinayak Singh Oberoi as well as the article creator's talk page doesn't give me any confidence that they will understand or respect a "delete" outcome of a community discussion, so salting is probably necessary. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable self-publicist. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farakka Port (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The existence of this port is questionable due to a serious lack of sources. A Google search yields no results for the so-called "Farakka Port". The cited sources in the article refer instead to a Farakka inland waterway, used for transporting coal to the Farakka Super Thermal Power Station near the Farakka Barrage. It seems it is actually referring to a floating terminal listed here. In any case, the topic fails to meet WP:GNG. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge some supported content to a section in Farakka. - Davidships (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is not a lot of coverage in English, but it's enough to verify, and combine with significant coverage in Bengali, and it passes GNG. I added another English language source. I've been redirecting and merging a lot of unsourced Indian-related stubs, but this is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [1][2][3][4], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Necrothesp: Please point out the relevant guideline/consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This has consistently been the result of AfDs. Hence consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only notability guideline pertaining to universities is at WP:NSCHOOL which states :- All universities, ..... that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. (Emphasis mine). There's an apparent contradiction here between what you are saying and the guideline, additionally can you also demonstrate how what you are saying is the consensus on notability of universities established by statue.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the somewhat related SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC,[5] the RFC close found that

  Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community.

  Rightly so. The page is notable if it meets the appropriate notability guidelines and policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the RfC only applied to secondary schools and not universities and shouldn't be cited to support any other deletion arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See my words somewhat related. Circular arguments do not stop being circular when the students at the relevant institution are a couple of years older. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sourcing that I can find that this meets NORG, which would be required for a private university. I would happily move to redirect if someone can find an appropriate target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence so far establishing notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]