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 Keep - Yomangani^talk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns re: WP:BIO. The subject of the article runs a large number of websites complicating WP:V. The sources given in the article are mostly http://www.askdrshah.com/ MidgleyDJ 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. I also think this fails WP:BIO and I agree that there are neutrality issues. Xdenizen 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Its a puff vanity piece. scope_creep 00:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, strong keep now this is one worth keeping despite his multi-website SEO antics. Two articles from Sify.com[1] (interview),[2] (feature), [3] (feature). These alone will satisfy the "multiple independent reliable sources" criteria of WP:BIO. In addition, he's backed up by a veritable pageful of press mentions (scans from offline sources included—nice!). [4] And I haven't even mentioned he's made it into the Limca Book of Records yet. Kavadi carrier 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: To overcome the problem of Google getting results from multiple websites all operated by the subject himself, throw in -site:sitename.com for each site that they operate. Kavadi carrier 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Limca book is notable, Sify is notableBakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 8 November 2006 (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 Sapnafive (talk • contribs) (moved from top of page - please post new comments at the bottom, and sign with ~~~~. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong Keep Sify, Rediff are independent third party sources. Limca Book of Records is an authentic source and so is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA. These are enough references for the data to be verified. askdrshah.com has been been given as a verifiable source as Dr Shah's contribution to understand the scope of homeoepathy in various illnesses.Sunildp 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Dr.Sunil— Sunildp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kavadi carrier 07:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd argue that http://www.askdrshah.com is a most inappropriate reference - it's hardly independant of the subject. MidgleyDJ 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kavadi carrier. The article needs better references, though. utcursch | talk 13:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Sunildp. Bad faith nom. Does running a large number of sites make a person fail WP:V Then Page, Wales, Gates etc should not have an entry here.  Doctor Bruno  17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was certainly not intended to be in bad faith. My efforts to research the subject online turned up mainly material written by the author or on websites the authors run. If you read my nomination you'll notice that I said the large number of sites run by the subject (or associates of the subject) complicate verification - I did not say it was a reason the subject was not notable. MidgleyDJ 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point of view is there is NO NEED to mention the sites he runs. I agree that you have not acted in bad faith. May be my comment was bad faith. Sorry if that was personal  Doctor Bruno  02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because he seems to be notable - and as mentioned above, there are verifiable sources. --SunStar Net 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. SiFy is at a tabloid level and Limca has over 10 000 entries. -- Jeandré, 2006-11-08t21:11z

Reply - by what rationale do you call it a tabloid? Just because you probably have not haerd of it or him (I never heard of Rajesh Shah either) doesnt mean it isnt a reliable source?Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please this physician is notable with many publications Yuckfoo 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's true they should be listed in the article. Is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA a peer reviewed journal? MidgleyDJ 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I strongly feel that the debate is more so due to the ignorance of some editors about the field of Homeopathy and that they need to read up adequately and understand the subject first. Each homeopath differs in his approach towards treating patients, hence the scarcity of cross references. You could refer to some websites on homeopathy, only then you will realise the extensive research done by Dr. Shah and his contribution to the field of Homeopathy for more than 20 years. As far as the journal is concerned, Simillimum which is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA is an independent peer edited journal. References of Dr. Shah’s articles in various other international journals have been cited and are definitely verifiable.Sapnafive 07:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]
  • Please do not "vote" twice because this is not a vote. We know you said the same thing twice; doing so only increases our suspicions that you have an interest in promoting this guy. Kavadi carrier 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text above was meant to be a comment only. I am still updating my knowledge about Wikipedia editing rules.Sapnafive 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]
• Strong Keep The references given in this article are from reputed Homoeopathic journals and independent organisations thus satisfying the verifiability criteria. His individual publications as cited also appear genuine. I would also agree with Sapnafive because after going thorugh references, he comes across as a Scientific Homeopath and not a Speculative one. Ashwinee 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Ashwinee[reply]

Comment I dont think it should matter whether the subject is a "Scientific Homeopath" or a "Speculative one" (whatever those terms may mean) - what matters is notability. I dont really think his own publications should count towards his notability. What should count are sources independant of the subject. I'm not in a position to judge whether Sify.com or Limca are notable sources - if they are, then the subject probably meets WP:BIO. MidgleyDJ 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for your information, Limca Book of Records and Sify are definitely notable sources and independant of the subject too. Sapnafive 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]

• Very Strong Keepbecause he seems to be highly notable - and as per majority said, there are verifiable sources. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:11, 12 November 2006 (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.