Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaydeep Sarangi


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jaydeep Sarangi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability has been questioned, and also the possibly inadequate 3rd party refs. -- AfD originally placed by User:Poet009; I restored the AfD I messed up during a edit conflict aimed at fixing the article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Myself, I do not support deleting it. I think the publications show notability  as an author and perhaps as an academic. Better references to the   reviews are however needed. boloji.com is basically a blog, but the review there was a signed one by a professional academic.    DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete-It is due to the fact that the article is very poorly referenced and its claims are not supported by references.Also no notable awards or honours by any reputed organizations.Without references from reliable sources articles can't be kept on WP.--Poet009 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:PROF. --Ragib (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF straight up. As far as WP:AUTH is concerned, I'm having trouble finding serious reviews of his work, and worldcat holdings of his works are not impressive (not being in more than a few dozen libraries for his most popular work, and with several of them not being in more than 2 or 3 libraries), so I conclude he fails this criterion as well. Ray  Talk 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.