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. Clear consensus to delete. Please don't confuse a listing on Bloomberg with an article or entry written by a journalist and vetted and oversighted by an editorial board. Drmies ( talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Semil Shah (  | 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. Promotional piece bombarded with primary sources. Of the few sources that are not primary or blogs none provide any depth of coverage about him, with some not even mentioning him. Shah lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Blatant promotion from an undisclosed shill using a sockpuppet. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete based on the terrible sourcing. Even if he were notable, this would be near- TNT material; if it survives, it'll be as a stub - David Gerard ( talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as only PR with PR sources for someone who essentially swims in the PR environment, nothing comes close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:PROMO. Coverage is all trivial or PR like. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep  Coverage by Bloomberg marks this individual as legitimate.  Not seeing a problem here.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- The Bloomberg mention is a catalog entry, insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia entry. It merely confirms that the subject exists and has a role identified in the article, but does not help to meet GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• My experience is that coverage on Bloomberg is a good indicator of Wikipedia notability.  Saying that it doesn't help to meet GNG is an incompetent opinion, see WP:CIR.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• It does not constitute an RS for a BLP, and we can't do without good RSes to base the actual article content on. If someone was prima facie notable, as you're asserting, but we didn't have the RSes - we couldn't have an article on them. So K.e. coffman's observation is apposite, and CIR in BLP - David Gerard ( talk) 22:53, 29 August 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.