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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Davewild (talk)08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Patra (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log)

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

PROD was contested. Non notable. FailsWP:AUTHORNayvik (talk)06:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of India-related deletion discussions. Nayvik
• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of UK-related deletion discussions. Nayvik
• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Literature-related deletion discussions. Nayvik

• Delete Per nom. All books appear to be self-published. Award is dubious as there are no Google hits for it and awarded by a Sunday School? Something is probably lost in translation, but the award does not seem notable. Probably should be speedy deleted perWP:CSD#A7 --Gogo Dodo (talk)08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin: With the original author's (account subsequently indef blocked by me) repeated attempts to remove the AfD notice and bizarre inclusion of UK royalty and/or University of Oxford templates, it might be a good idea to salt the article once it is deleted. --Gogo Dodo (talk)18:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vanity piece created, most probably, by subject himself.Salih(talk)09:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failingWP:AUTHOR, and I'd have tagged it as A7.Nolelover ^{It's football season!}18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failingWP:AUTHOR.Rabbabodrool (talk)20:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Blatant vanity article. I know we assess this on notability first, but the fact that the user kept try to delete the AfD notice until getting himself banned, plus his unilateral addition of a Good Article template to his article suggests we've got someone whose idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit is a website where you have the right to a page on yourself exactly to your specifications.Chris Neville-Smith (talk)00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was not banned, just blocked. Though the editor is now evading that block through a wireless connection. --Gogo Dodo (talk)08:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Authors-related deletion discussions.--• Gene93k (talk)01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FailsWP:AUTHOR,WP:BK,WP:AUTO, etc. Also, given the author's strange manipulations of the article,SALT.Qworty (talk)19:59, 18 January 2011 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.