Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhab Chandra Jena

Madhab Chandra Jena

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Could find zero reliable in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG, the same conclusion has been raised repeatedly at Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena since January. There's also a pending SPI against the creator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd speedy this as a stub. I have no sourcing in the article either... Gsearch brings up nothing, other than a hit on the name for a person on parol from prison. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is also another version of this article created by the author AfD' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, could have been moved to draft under WP:DRAFTIFY, little point though since it will not pass BIO anyway 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the facts before deletion.As per policy of Wikipedia the scholar criteria, books criteria and other criteria should be checked.It pains when somebody puts the allegation of undisclosed payments without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is no any hidden fact, peacock terms, it's written neutral point of view, if anything is there like this editors are free to remove that portion very quickly.Nothing can be perfect in very first attempt,there is always a scope for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check the websites in Google,books written,scholar,wp ref,wikimedia and other images etc. part then take decisions for deletion.deletion should not be done as a doubt on somebody it should be done as per the Wikipedia criteria and policy.when I checked all the references as as sited above I feel it should not be deleted rather it should be improved by the editors like us— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]