Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadananda Prusty

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. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadananda Prusty[edit]

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

A completely unsourced biography of a living person with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar citations are minimal to nonexistent. An earlier version of the article was longer but no more informative, and included two copyvio sentences; I declined the G12 speedy nomination because the rest of the article's text seemed sufficiently novel. This was also prodded as part of the recent push to get rid of unsourced BLPs, but the article's creator removed both the prod and the unsourcedBLP tag without improving the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate general notability, and no evidence of significant academic impact through publication record. Hqb (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldnt find any credible sources to verify notability. I will reconsider my position if any are posted. --Stormbay (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Near-zero GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom fails GNG in a bad way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - 11 Ghits at Google scholar are not bad, but not great either. Chair of the library (committee?), but not of his department? Bearian (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2010 (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.