Deletion of Gautam Sanyal

Comment: I agree that the subject does not seem to qualify under , nor - of course - do civil servants get automatic passes through WP:BIO.  However, the ''Times of India'' and ''The Statesman'' are impeccable sources, and their mention of the subject does, I believe, pass the "significant detail" threshold of the GNG.  Whether his career has been dependent on Banerjee, or that he hasn't garnered GScholar hits (huh?) is quite irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: All the 'find sources' GNews hits relate to the subject of the article, but none of the GBooks or GScholar ones do. Of the GNews hits, while many are passing mentions, quite a few, relating to controversy either about his original appointment to his current position (which does not seem to be automatically notable) or to its extension when he reached retirement age, are more substantial - but seem less concerned with the subject himself than with either with the precedents broken by his appointment or its extension or with Banerjee's insistence on appointing and then keeping him. In brief, he seems to have some notability under {{WP:GNG| - enough to justify a mention on Wikipedia - but all inherited from Banerjee. As a complicating factor, many of the GBooks hits and almost all of the GScholar ones seem to relate to a biochemist with AstraZeneca whose research publications would probably meet  should anyone ever create an article on him
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)