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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debasis Panigrahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The sources cited here do not appear to support the notability of the subject (indeed, most do not mention the subject). A Google search reveals a book published by a vanity press, and not much more. It may be worth looking for non-English sources to support notability. agtx 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This source, which is cited in the article, says that the subject has received a Sahitya Akademi Award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, although this and his website states Panigrahi winning a Odisha(or Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award, i have been unable to confirm this at the award's own website. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That does seem to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Indian Express source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources: Indian Express, The Hindu, [1], [2]. @Coolabahapple: Odisha Sahitya Academy Award is not (Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award. Both are different. You were looking into a wrong website; the correct one is odishasahityaakademi.org. Anup [Talk] 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anup, is this something you (or anyone else reading) would want to work on? I got started cutting out some of the promotional language and unsourced claims, and moving what refs there were to the appropriate claim, but I don't really feel competent to take it any further; I just don't have enough contextual knowledge to feel confident in my interpretation of the sources. But if someone else did want to, userfy seems like it could be a good solution here. (Otherwise I'm still chewing on DGG's delete as promo arg.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as promotional, and , if actually notable, in need of total rewriting from sources. This is written in exactly the style of many prootional bios of writers where peoplethink that stating superlatives in the article makes for proof of notability If there are sources, someone interested in using them should write the article. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is a poorly referenced promotional essay and is best deleted, without prejudice to recreation with RS and neutral tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2016 (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.