Elisabeth Prügl (talk·contribs) and Ituta (talk·contribs): Education Program:Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies/Gender and International Affairs (Fall 2013), User:Ituta/Course page
Is the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association notable?
Potential secondary sources
Darvall K, Bradbury A (2012). "Pathways for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in medical and surgical patients". Phlebology. 27 Suppl 2 (2_suppl): 33–42. doi:10.1258/phleb.2012.012S36. PMID22457303.
Romualdi E, Dentali F, Rancan E, Squizzato A, Steidl L, Middeldorp S; et al. (2013). "Anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism during pregnancy: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature". J Thromb Haemost. 11 (2): 270–81. doi:10.1111/jth.12085. PMID23205953. ((cite journal)): Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Greer DM, Styer AK, Toth TL; et al. (2010). "Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 21-2010. A request for retrieval of oocytes from a 36-year-old woman with anoxic brain injury". N Engl J Med. 363 (3): 276–83. doi:10.1056/NEJMcpc1004360. PMID20647203. ((cite journal)): Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Baglin T (2012). "Inherited and acquired risk factors for venous thromboembolism". Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 33 (2): 127–37. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1311791. PMID22648484.
Baglin T, Bauer K, Douketis J; et al. (2012). "Duration of anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of an unprovoked pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH". J Thromb Haemost. 10 (4): 698–702. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04662.x. PMID22332937. ((cite journal)): Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
de Jong PG, Coppens M, Middeldorp S (2012). "Duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: balancing benefits and harms on the long term". Br J Haematol. 158 (4): 433–41. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09196.x. PMID22734929.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Lijfering WM, Flinterman LE, Vandenbroucke JP, Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC (2011). "Relationship between venous and arterial thrombosis: a review of the literature from a causal perspective". Semin Thromb Hemost. 37 (8): 885–96. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1297367. PMID22198853.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
van Langevelde K, Flinterman LE, van Hylckama Vlieg A; et al. (2012). "Broadening the factor V Leiden paradox: pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis as 2 sides of the spectrum". Blood. 120 (5): 933–46. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-02-407551. PMID22496157. ((cite journal)): Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Rosendall FR (2005). "Venous Thrombosis: the role of genes, environment, and behavior". Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2005: 1–12. doi:10.1182/asheducation-2005.1.1. PMID16304352.
19 May 2024 – Achievement motivation inventory(talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by GoodHue291 (t · c): The article has multiple issues within it. The article relies on a single source rather than multiple sources to back up the information. It also needs Inline Citations to correspond with general references. Plus, I do not think this article meets th ...
Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. This appears to be a 2nd campus of the same hospital. Meets WP:GNG, and in the context of the parent article also meets WP:NORG/WP:NHOSPITAL. Does not appear to have a substantial coverage independently for a standalone article. Bgv. (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.
Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications
•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1
•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:
This BLP appears to be of a reasonably successful but otherwise ordinary early-career professor. I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG. Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1. Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Support as per nomination. He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present. I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission. It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain (talk·contribs) and Qcne (talk·contribs). AdamBlackt • c 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Adam Black GB. I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC, and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles. Happy to defer to consensus in this case. Qcne(talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your work at AfC. For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h-index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers. I'm surprised this got through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale. At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines. Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable? The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself. Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1. In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles. If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete as WP:Too soon. Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
Delete. As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [20] and [21], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It definitely is a topic. [22][23] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women.
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment review of references below.
Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.
Extended content
Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.
Response: The product was developed in the mid-1980s by Jim Peden and Barbara Lynn Peden, who wrote a book, Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian (1988).
The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
"Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
James Peden's book is self-published.
Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.
31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.
First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.
The article "Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:
Notable Subject: Vegepet is a significant topic within the realm of veganism and pet care, addressing the growing interest in providing vegan diets for pets.
Relevant Information: The article provides valuable information about the concept of vegetarian and vegan pet food, contributing to the understanding of alternative diets for pets.
Community Interest: There is evident interest in the subject, as demonstrated by the ongoing discussion and contributions from Wikipedia users. This indicates that the topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Educational Value: Including information about Vegepet aligns with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers. It allows individuals to learn about different dietary options for pets and the ethical considerations involved.
Neutral Presentation: The article presents information in a neutral manner, providing facts and references to support its content. It adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability.
Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Did you write that yourself? What you have presented here looks like something an AI would write. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
If there are suitable sources then post them: the onus is on you to provide them. I have already done a search for sources too but found nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
VegePet "made news" in its time (from the mid-1990s through 2010) by being a pioneering brand in the field of vegan pet nutrition. Developed by Jim Peden and his then-wife, Barbara Lynn Peden, VegePet was among the first to offer plant-exclusive dietary solutions for pets, specifically dogs and cats. This was significant because it addressed the ethical concerns of feeding pets without harming other animals, aligning with the principles of veganism and vegetarianism.
Key Points:
Innovative Approach: VegePet introduced VegeDog and VegeCat, DIY pet food supplements that allowed pet owners to prepare nutritionally complete vegan meals for their pets. This was innovative at a time when commercial vegan pet food options were extremely limited.
Historical Context: The development of VegePet occurred before the widespread use of the Internet, which means it gained traction through word of mouth, niche publications, and communities interested in veganism and ethical pet care.
Media Coverage: Publications like Vegetarian Times mentioned VegePet in several articles, highlighting its role in the emerging market of plant-based pet foods. This helped establish its credibility and spread awareness among vegetarians and vegans who were looking for ethical feeding options for their pets.
Ongoing Development: The Pedens' continuous product development and the eventual competition from other companies entering the plant-exclusive pet food market kept the conversation around vegan pet diets alive, contributing to its historical significance.
Limited Online Presence: Despite its contributions, VegePet is not widely praised on the Internet, possibly due to its early development before the digital age and the rise of newer brands that utilized online marketing strategies more effectively. However, I have found at least two articles in Vegetarian Times that praised VegeDog at the time. This article needs time for more development.MaynardClark (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, this reads like an AI chatbot wrote it. This is highly concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NORG (particularly WP:NPRODUCT) or WP:GNG. I concur with the source analysis by Traumnovelle. I found one newspaper article that is independent, reliable, and might be considered significant coverage,[24] but it is from 1989, and couldn't find any significant coverage since their initial release (WP:NSUSTAINED). Being mentioned when media outlets write about vegetarian diets and supplements for pets doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. (If the article is kept, it needs serious pruning to remove unrelated content and promotional content.) Schazjmd(talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This article has survived an AfD before, and the Wikipedia notability article - WP:GNG - says that Notability does not expire.
@MaynardClark, I can't find a previous afd for this article, could you please link to it? Schazjmd(talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit misleading to say Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards since there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd(talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
You're right. This is the only AfD. I looked at the first history screen when I had been reviewing the article's history and somehow ended up on the most recent screen. My bad! Sorry. I've been busy with other things and don't really have time for an AfD right now, but I'm pushing myself to look for references. I apologize. That is my error.
Delete. If kept, rename and immprove. It's a poor quality article, full of irrelevant information that is nothing to do with the subject of the article (I have trimmed some of it, but it needs a lot more). I vote for delete, as both the company and product do not meet the notability requirements. If retained I recommend it is moved to Compassion Circle and adapted into an article about the company that includes some appropriate content on the product. Not that the company appears to meet the GNG either. MarcGarver (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep – Vegepet is notable as a pioneering brand in vegan pet nutrition, offering innovative plant-based dietary solutions for pets and contributing to the discussion of ethical feeding options.MaynardClark (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: The article is a WP:COATRACK, with all but the first two references not mentioning Vegepet and the first being non-independent. I could conceivably support a move or rename to Compassion Circle as suggested above, but not in the article's current state, as few of the references are about the company either. I could not find any article about Vegepet that is both independent and not trying to sell me something, which suggests to me WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are both failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What to do about coatracks - Article gives constructive advice; perhaps follow that advice. But the article was about Vegepet and its contributions at the time as the basis of its notability - at the time of its innovations. We know that, later on, other famous persons have entered the fray with meatless pet foods, including Mark Cuban with WildEarth (vegan dog food) and Good Food Institute (generally alt-meat or 'meatless meat'). I could have wanted to see more of a timeline approach - in a much different article - about the innovations in meatless pet foods over the millennia (and in the 20th and 21st centuries). But that would be a different article (or a 'main article' on a related topic, perhaps to be cited within the article. But we could think of words like obscured, overlooked, unheralded, neglected, unsung, forgotten, marginalized, underappreciated, anonymous, and unrecognized to describe this profound historical contributor who risks being glossed over and forgotten because nothing was written about them by historians of stature in a pre-inernet period, and available content written about the Pedens (this contributor) is treated dismissively because what remains seems to be from 'movement allies' who wanted solutions to the moral dilemma of killing some animals (called 'food animals') to feed their preferred animals (called 'pets'). I am thinking that Barbara Lynn Peden's book (allied with their development of these supplements, to frame their rationale for their products), Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian, was or may have been self-published. Their philosophy may have reflected their historical period's lay assumptions that we can get all the nutrients through supplementation, so feeding products should emphasize marketability and user satisfaction (nutritional completeness, pet palatability, pet digestibility, etc.), all considered to be 'solvable challenges' in their approach. Sure, they seem to have been innovative (in the 'DIY tradition'), and we may not even know how sustainable it is or was. But it's an idea, and it seems to have fallen to others to develop from where they left off, and now the vegan pet food industry seems to have hundreds of millions of dollars in it. Maybe the Pedens went bankrupt and/or sold off their IP and other assets 'in a fire sale' because the entity 'Compassion Circle' seems to have become one major distributor for the book and pet products (others also sell VegePet). The backstory on Compassion Circle may be a nonprofit that it is (or was) run by Kim Sheridan, a naturopath who started this nonprofit which (in early 2015) became a distributor for VegePet in 2015, and also in 2015, began filming interviews for a film, The Vegan Pet Paradigm: Toward a World Where All Animals are Healthy, Long-Lived, and Free of Suffering. Thus, they are concerned with veganization of human companion animals. Kim Sheridan, ND, is married to naturopath, Jareth Sheridan, ND, and they practice naturopathy and do other work in their spare time; Kim Sheridan has written two 'metaphysical books'. Their website used to be http:www.VeganPets.com, but The Wayback Machine cannot crawl that domain, and Compassion Circle had announced in a March 16. 2015 e-mail that they had acquired the assets from Jim Peden (who was 'moving on' to do other creative vegan things, like writing novels). But I found their promotional website on Alignable. This article is not about them for various reasons. Without a strong historical presence, it seems that VegePet may have fizzled out, but it is being manufactured, and we don't know where it is produced, nor by whom. Vecado of Canada also markets VegePet products, along with other supports for plant-based pets. If an article is historical, what is the current standard against which earlier claims are being compared, and what did those historical actors think that they were improving or making possible? MaynardClark (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike[Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met.Uhooep (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much. However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Week keep, for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My !vote is "weak" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Yet another subarticle of Precision cut tissue slices, created by a now-blocked paid editor for a company in the industry. There's a minimal history; not sure if it's too detailed for Wikipedia or would want to be merged into Histology or something. -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This article was apparently created by a now-blocked paid editor working for a company in the industry. The content is partly how-to and partly promotional and partly trivia. Perhaps it's best to drop it entirely or trim most of it and merge anything worth keeping into Microtome#Vibrating? -- Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake; it was created by User:Davidswanepoel; the blocked User:M66JX did not start editing it until October 2023. Some spammy content was added by User:Neurolady27, who also attempted to create Precisionary Instruments. This was the company that apparently paid M66JX, so now I'm wondering if this was actually a second paid editor or account? -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete: This is an important tool in histology and pathology laboratories, but most of the sources are about technique, not the machine itself. If kept, the "In media" section has to go, 100% SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
My initial impression is that vibrating microtome is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. I don't think the article should be named after one company's trademark. I would say, weak keep and rename vibrating microtome, but I don't object to merging into Microtome#Vibrating or WP:TNT and starting afresh at Vibrating microtome. Mgp28 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Like precision cut tissue slices, this appears to have been created by a now-blocked paid editor, and is of uneven quality. Precision cut lung slices was created at the same time, but seems more informative. (I mention it in case someone wants to nominate it as well.) -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment All the articles you mentioned read like college essays. There are brief references to some real publications, but no backing for other statements. It's all loaded with WP:OR. If anything, make precision cut tissue slices the main article, then merge the remaining to that. Otherwise, this probably could have been Speedy deleted? Conyo14 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge to precision cut tissue slices and trim that article down to remove all the lab cruft. All of these articles could be merged into a single article shorter than this one with no loss of useful content. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on the block log and User talk:M66JX, it appears this article was created by a now-banned editor secretly working for Precisionary Instruments. The language is pervasively promotional, despite several editors making changes to tone it down. I'm not sure there needs to be a dedicated article on this topic, but WP:TNT seems like a good solution. -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Only possibility of a pass is WP:Prof#C1, but GS cites of less than 900 in this very highly cited field are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC).
Delete. Registrar is generally a more senior post at Indian universities compared to the west, basically the chief administrative officer reporting directly to the president/vice chancellor, so it's possible that being a registrar might lead to more coverage. That said, I don't see sufficient sourcing for GNG and I don't see him clearly passing any of the NACADEMIC criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This BLP appears to be highly PROMO, written by a blocked sockpuppet, and reads more like a resume to promote themselves and their business. While the subject has won some awards, it's unclear if any of them are notable. According to ANYBIO, we may have to keep the BLP if any of the awards are significant. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I don't still get what you call PR. Though it may seem, but can't we check WP:BEFORE or any other way. This dawn.com author is a reporter per the articles written for the reliable news source. There is this from GBooks. In a search on news, I got many pop ups.here. All these are resourceful ways of checking the credibility of an article particularly to this one that focuses on Cancer(pharmaceutical) perhaps or whatever. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
