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. Michig (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Rai (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)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:PROF, WP:BIO etc. Further it is written like an advertisement. Bharathiya (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete. Buggie111 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEnot notable.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Reads like an advertisement and entirely primary-sourced. Even if he has some notability not shown in the present article, we're probably better off just deleting this and starting fresh. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:ADVERT, WP:GNG. —Theopolisme 03:55, 18 November 2012 (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.