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 keep‎. It seems that the only grounds for deleting this article is that the subject supposedly requested it. But there has been no validation that the requester is the subject of this article so that remains in doubt to me, the closer. So, I find myself siding with those arguing that this article should be Kept. If editors believe this article should be protected, please put in a request at WP:RFP. But generally, protection isn't given proactively and it might only be protected once/if vandalism occurs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deen K. Chatterjee[edit]

Deen K. Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, someone claiming to be the subject is claiming that the article was created as the result of blackmail, and is repeatedly blanking the article. As such I am nominating the article for deletion as a courtesy, regardless of the truth of the allegations. To be honest, I am very skeptical of the blackmail claim, as the author of the article is a long-standing user, and none of the content in the article is in any way negative. I have no strong opinion about whether this person passes WP:PROF or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: GScholar. Notability more likely to be via WP:NAUTHOR than WP:NPROF. Could reasonably be construed as a relatively unknown figure for the purpose of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but I am not a fan of the supposed subject's strongarm approach. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject meets wp:NAUTHOR. I don’t see any reason to delete the page. There is no evidence it is being used to blackmail the subject. Thriley (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see a similarly named page deleted as WP:G7 13 years ago [1]. Perhaps that one was used for extortion and the subject is now skeptical? —siroχo 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Looking at the deleted content of the original Deen Chatterjee article, there is nothing there that is objectionable either or that could serve as extortion material. It was tagged for speedy deletion (non-notable) and then the page creator blanked it. ... discospinster _talk 20:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sourcing seems solid, personal requests aside, I think the individual here is a notable scholar, deserving of a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: perhaps the subject (presumably User:Deenchat) has received an email from someone saying they will change the article in the future unless they pay. I suggest increasing page protection to extended confirmed protection for now for this reason.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems very weird ("This page was created for financial extortion"); nothing in the current or deleted article seems to be objectionable. Agree with A. B. that protection might be warranted. The subject seems notable as an author. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Others have suggested they've threatened to add defamatory content in the future. There are also documents examples where scammers have threatened to delete article or have them deleted if the subject doesn't pay up. Note that the subject receiving a threat of whatever, doesn't mean it was created for the purpose, even if the person who contacted them said this. It's well accepted that plenty of scammers will find existing articles created by others in good faith and sprout nonsense to try and get a subject to pay. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the subject’s request and the policy discussion above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Has anyone verified that the deletion request originates with the subject of the article? (For example, is this an attempt by scammers to hold the page for ransom?) Notability per WP:NAUTHOR looks likely, although it looks like it might be the kind of marginal case where we should honor a genuine deletion request from the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am incredibly sceptical of someone who flings wild accusations of extortion against an established user because they want to memory-hole an article that does not suit their PR purposes. The sourcing seems good, the subject likely meets WP:NACADEMIC WP:NAUTHOR (which would mean deleting the article would be pointless, as someone else could just create the article with the same sources while still adhering to WP:BLP), and (should this article be deleted) someone is going to want to watch the title to make sure it doesn't get turned into a PR page for Chatterjee. As to whether or not there is any sort of blackmail going on, ECP should fix that (semi is too low a bar here) and allow the article to still be edited; if they're that persistent about a payday someone sitting on the page to watch it may be needed until then.
  All around, this seems like a case of one or more people having no idea how Wikipedia works and assuming either that we'll buy spurious claims of an established editor creating a page to extort the subject, or that material to further an extortion scheme doesn't get summarily reverted on discovery for whatever reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jéské Couriano: I think we should be very careful about flinging accusations against subjects, when we as editors should know a lot better. As I said above, it's well established that extortion over articles can and does happen, way too often. Note as I said above, this doesn't mean the creator of the article was involved. In fact it's very common that blackmailers just find articles on subjects with low notability, especially new articles and then make up bullshit. (Not what happened here but it also happens a lot with articles at AFD.) While it's unfortunate that the subject took the blackmailer at their word, as you yourself have said we cannot expect subjects to know how Wikipedia operates and for that matter we cannot expect them to know how Wikipedia scams operate, so we should not fault them when they unfortunately make such mistakes and instead just help to inform them. Also I don't think the subject is wrong to be concerned. Anyone experienced with BLP knows that way too many BLP violations last way too long in articles. The vast majority of these by far are not added by scammers, but we should have sympathy for subjects who do recognise what a disaster articles often are for subjects sometimes fairly but way to often not fairly. (Note that this doesn't mean we should delete articles on notable subjects where BLPREQDEL doesn't apply, but it does mean we should have sympathy for subjects concerns rather than pretending we're some perfect place which never defames and harms living persons with our articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- probably a Keep based on either Author or PROF guidelines (books and book reviews, not GScholar citations are what make a philosophy prof notable) but given the request, I strongly suggest putting the extended confirmed protection on the article as a precaution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
• Comment, leaning delete. I'm not sure whether the book list on the page passes WP:AUTHOR, but the page seems to me to fail WP:PROF, by a fairly wide margin. The faculty positions (fellow, affiliate faculty) are fairly junior-level. Unless the page passes Author or GNG, there may be insufficient notability to keep, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The idea that this article was actually created for extortion purposes doesn't pass the sniff test. It's much more plausible that a scammer came along and lied about creating it, maybe throwing in a threat to put nasty things in it if the subject didn't pay up. Searching on JSTOR finds enough book reviews that, if they were solo-author works, we'd have an unremarkable pass of WP:NAUTHOR. However, they are edited or co-edited collections, which we generally (and I think with good reason) count as lesser contributions when it comes to evaluating notability. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors. I'm skeptical of the unverified subject's request to delete as this could be part of the scam and it doesn't seem like there is inappropriate content in the article. But, of course, consensus here rules.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:34, 18 October 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.