Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Shah (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 August 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Seddon ^talk 15:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Shah

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

Article about a homeopath. Most of the cited sources appear to be primary sources and trivial listing of papers that he has written. There is no evidence that his research has been cited in respected medical journals. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. I am also unable to find any sources with biographical coverage of the subject, so it also appears to fail WP:BASIC. - Mr X 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because of WP:NPOV, and because homoeopathy is transparently nonsense, WP:NFRINGE requires mainstream sourcing specific which this lacks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. A doctor working in conventional medicine wouldn't meet the guidelines based on having published a few papers, and a flair for self-publicity isn't grounds for inclusion either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff piece about a fringe figure with no significant mention in reliable sources. Trivial mention at best, and most sources do not come even close to meeting our reliability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, diluted, homeopathic keep. He is the subject of one long article in The Economic Times and a couple of paragraphs in another in a subsidiary publication of The Indian Express, suggesting there's probably more media coverage in India. I hate to say it, but that just barely clears WP:GNG for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd situation where there are a lot of sources for a WP:BLP, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that the person in question passes WP:BIO. To wit, here are the things we should look at for general biographic notability: 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Neither of those criteria are satisfied. The next thing we could look at is WP:PROF which covers medical professionals generally (I note that most doctors are not notable enough for an article). The relevant criteria would be that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I just don't see evidence that this is the case. Shah is profiled as an example of a homeopath, but just because a doctor is profiled doesn't make them notable. I would further note that WP:FRINGEBLP warns us that we need to look carefully at sources due to the promotional nature of many fringe proponents. This area suffers from such in particular. On the balance, then, I say, default to delete. jps (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are of poor quality, subject does not seem to be particularly noteworthy even within the fringe subject of Homoeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2014 (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.