- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Cyrus Khambatta
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cyrus Khambatta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable scientist (not a professor), who has co-published some papers as a post-doc that have not been picked up by any material RS. Very little RS on this subject outside of commercial blogs/websites for diabetes treatment programs; no material regional or national U.S. media outlet have covered him (and zero at SIGCOV level). The article has a PROMO-feel promoting the subject's "achievements" and "businesses" in the diabetes therapeutic area (even though no decent RS thinks them notable enough to cover them). There are copyvio issues (per tags), and the article author also uploaded the bio picture of the subject in commons stating they are the copyright owner (possible WP:COI and/or WP:UPE angle). I ask the AfD community for their input. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly not notable as a scientist, to get that out of the way. We are talking about a businessman here. In that capacity, from my quick searches:
- Pros: - quite the presence in the blogosphere
- Cons: - that's the "nutrition fad blogosphere"; things like this and this. Mostly very non-neutral, echo-chamberish stuff. Admittedly there's at least one highly referenced fact-based takedown. Still, single person outlets it is.
- - can't find a single reputable review of his flagship publication, "Mastering Diabetes".
- Overall, leaning delete, unless better sources than the above are presented. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and doesn't meet WP:GNG either for the nutrition fad end of things either. Similar to Elmidae, I'm not seeing sources that are suitable showing significant coverage. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the article is overly promotional and if we cut that out there would be no substance at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry, but we never publish original research. In 2007, that could be excused, but it's almost 2020. Bearian ( talk) 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Cyrus Khambatta
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cyrus Khambatta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable scientist (not a professor), who has co-published some papers as a post-doc that have not been picked up by any material RS. Very little RS on this subject outside of commercial blogs/websites for diabetes treatment programs; no material regional or national U.S. media outlet have covered him (and zero at SIGCOV level). The article has a PROMO-feel promoting the subject's "achievements" and "businesses" in the diabetes therapeutic area (even though no decent RS thinks them notable enough to cover them). There are copyvio issues (per tags), and the article author also uploaded the bio picture of the subject in commons stating they are the copyright owner (possible WP:COI and/or WP:UPE angle). I ask the AfD community for their input. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly not notable as a scientist, to get that out of the way. We are talking about a businessman here. In that capacity, from my quick searches:
- Pros: - quite the presence in the blogosphere
- Cons: - that's the "nutrition fad blogosphere"; things like this and this. Mostly very non-neutral, echo-chamberish stuff. Admittedly there's at least one highly referenced fact-based takedown. Still, single person outlets it is.
- - can't find a single reputable review of his flagship publication, "Mastering Diabetes".
- Overall, leaning delete, unless better sources than the above are presented. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and doesn't meet WP:GNG either for the nutrition fad end of things either. Similar to Elmidae, I'm not seeing sources that are suitable showing significant coverage. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the article is overly promotional and if we cut that out there would be no substance at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry, but we never publish original research. In 2007, that could be excused, but it's almost 2020. Bearian ( talk) 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.