- 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. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Khader
- Dr. Khader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I started cleaning up fringe viewpoints on this article, but then I realized that there is almost nothing when fringe stuff is removed. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as I understand it, the more fringe viewpoints you remove, the stronger they become, because homeopathy. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There isn't really anything substantive about this individual contained within this article in its present form (and the recent removal of content seems appropriate). There is not anything here that suggests notability, nor sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Not seeing enough in the article or via a search to satisfy WP:BIO. Will eat some millet and try searching again later -- perhaps with better results. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The notability of a crank is established by coverage of his crankery in reliable independent sources, establishing its significance. That is absent here. Guy ( Help!) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per lack of reliable sources. HealthyGirl ( talk) 03:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The person is notable in Mysore, Bangalore and other surrounding areas with a population of above 2 crore. (apx). On line sources are less, which I will try to add today. But one off- line source is removed by the nominator along with the information!! Is this permitted? The nominator for deletion has removed sourced content and then proposed for deletion! Is this permitted as per Wikipedia policy? - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the article before TPoD's edits/nomination. @ Rayabhari: The sources don't have to be online, but they do have to be published and reliable. It does help a lot to be online, though. There's a presumption that if a subject is current (e.g. we're not writing about some 2nd century military figure or ancient book), it's unlikely to be both notable and not online. That said, it's not technically required -- although it's a tougher sell for a biography of a living person, and tougher still when that person's notability is based on what falls under the WP:FRINGE guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The user who nominated this article for deletion started editing Wikipedia after 5.4.2016 and the user has already started proposing deletion of several articles! Is it permitted as per wikipedia policy? I am asking this politely. - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @ Rayabhari: There is no requirement of experience for proposing deletion. Also, I didn't remove any sources (I removed some inline citations, but they were still at the bottom of the article), but I did remove WP:FRINGE material, which shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. Also, see WP:FARAWAY. Finally, I hardly think that someone who practices homeopathy should be called an "expert", as he is obviously not one, just a fringe nut. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Also see WP:IKNOWIT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the consensus is clear enough and the article with it itself, nothing at all for the applicable notability and simply nothing else actually suggestive there's anything convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 10 June 2016 (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. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Khader
- Dr. Khader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I started cleaning up fringe viewpoints on this article, but then I realized that there is almost nothing when fringe stuff is removed. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, as I understand it, the more fringe viewpoints you remove, the stronger they become, because homeopathy. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There isn't really anything substantive about this individual contained within this article in its present form (and the recent removal of content seems appropriate). There is not anything here that suggests notability, nor sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Not seeing enough in the article or via a search to satisfy WP:BIO. Will eat some millet and try searching again later -- perhaps with better results. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The notability of a crank is established by coverage of his crankery in reliable independent sources, establishing its significance. That is absent here. Guy ( Help!) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per lack of reliable sources. HealthyGirl ( talk) 03:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The person is notable in Mysore, Bangalore and other surrounding areas with a population of above 2 crore. (apx). On line sources are less, which I will try to add today. But one off- line source is removed by the nominator along with the information!! Is this permitted? The nominator for deletion has removed sourced content and then proposed for deletion! Is this permitted as per Wikipedia policy? - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the article before TPoD's edits/nomination. @ Rayabhari: The sources don't have to be online, but they do have to be published and reliable. It does help a lot to be online, though. There's a presumption that if a subject is current (e.g. we're not writing about some 2nd century military figure or ancient book), it's unlikely to be both notable and not online. That said, it's not technically required -- although it's a tougher sell for a biography of a living person, and tougher still when that person's notability is based on what falls under the WP:FRINGE guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The user who nominated this article for deletion started editing Wikipedia after 5.4.2016 and the user has already started proposing deletion of several articles! Is it permitted as per wikipedia policy? I am asking this politely. - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @ Rayabhari: There is no requirement of experience for proposing deletion. Also, I didn't remove any sources (I removed some inline citations, but they were still at the bottom of the article), but I did remove WP:FRINGE material, which shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. Also, see WP:FARAWAY. Finally, I hardly think that someone who practices homeopathy should be called an "expert", as he is obviously not one, just a fringe nut. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Also see WP:IKNOWIT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the consensus is clear enough and the article with it itself, nothing at all for the applicable notability and simply nothing else actually suggestive there's anything convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 10 June 2016 (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.