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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arnab Jan Deka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate significance of its subject. References are not convincing, too. Nalbarian (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• per John Pack Lambert Rajuiu (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree this is simply a promotional piece. I'm actually amazed it has been around for so long. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 18 December 2020 (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.