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. OK, consensus appears to be that the references - even if genuine - aren't substantive enough on the topic. There is also the concern that the article is unduly promoting fringe viewpoints. Having articles published alone is not a criterium of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Rajesh Shah

Rajesh 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 sufficiently notable (esp. lacking RS coverage). Delete and salt. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep this article is strongly suggested since the references mentioned are genuine. Limca Book of Records is a verifiable source and so are the articles on Sify.com and Rediff.com. Additionally his articles published in the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA are a strong evidence of his written contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanpednekar38 ( talk) 11:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)— Rohanpednekar38 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete. Shah is a charlatan preying on ignorance and gullibility. He claims to have an MD (Homeopathy), an oxymoron because no accredited university provides such a degree, which dishonors the rigor of a true MD. The article contains weak, non-expert, one-sided sources, and is a disguise behind apparent research to blatantly promote his online business at https://www.askdrshah.com/online.aspx where an "interview" begins with step 1, "Make payment". I removed this personal website per WP:ADMASK. The article should be nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD under numerous criteria, including "unambiguous advertising" and "blatant hoax". -- Zefr ( talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Was AfD'd in 2014, and nothing notable has happened related to him since. Natureium ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, because he seems to be notable - and as mentioned above, there are verifiable sources. Since he is promoting online homeopathy treatement there is nothing wrong in it. He has done a lot of research in homeopathy and a doctor like him deserves a wikipedia page. I think we should consider his contribution. -- Divshirsat12 11:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Shah gets a few mentions in press but in these instances is not the main subject of an article, e.g. coverage of publication of 27 patients with HIV given a homeopathic treatment who did not get better. Notability has not been demonstrated when judged against WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC. In addition to this, WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 08:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep please this physician is notable with many publications Pooja bhatiya 16:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)— Pooja bhatiya ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - other than the creation of another promotional article. reply
• Delete - Cannot find references in large papers like The Guardian. There also is an issue with the article and its sources. These claim that homeopathy is medicine, that new effective vaccinations can be derived from "nosodes" etc. If these were proper pharmaceutical procedures, they should not be called homeopathy and the material used should not be called a nosode. We do derive vaccines from deactivated virus cultures today but the virus is never called a nosode. Also, if looking closely at the source, it does say anyway that this is experimental and has not been demonstrated to show any results. Perhaps that if it did and this was a significant, well documented event, the relevant articles on those conditions would also refer to these promising treatments. — Paleo Neonate – 21:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete another promotional article on a non-notable physician. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not sufficient refs and promotional. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:39, 1 October 2017 (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.