Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Razdan (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Razdan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously Afd'd and refunded. Still unable to determine if notable. Ref 10 is advertising press release meaning promotional. Low h-index. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete the article as written is a CV, and the sources are directory listings. Even if sources could be found to show notability, the article would need to be entirely rewritten. Natureium (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are all very spammy as is the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking for independent sources shows very little in the way of "significant coverage in multiple sources". The most used source in the article is Dr. Sanjay Razdan, which is a two sentence "profile" of Razdan containing a link "ARE YOU DR. RAZDAN? Claim/Edit Your Profile". That's not even up to the quality of self-published content. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Poor sources- pretty much any physician involved in some research has just as many sources coming up with their name... Spyder212 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations, from Google Scholar: 76, 72, 48, 43 .... For biomedicine, we usually expect at least one article with >100. The three highest are reviews, which alwaysget higher citations, so I judge it's a little below the boundary for WP:PROF. Promotionalism is certain present--a string of very minor "" honors" -- "Marquis Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare" DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
☎) 17:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Notability requires verifiable evidence, not mere assertions. This article obviously fails ANYBIO as well as GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried, but can't find
WP:GNG in Wikipedia. We are trying to build an encyclopædia, and those are the rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment WOW, a lot has happened here since I was on Holidays. Well, it's god to see that a lot of people are interested in this page because the other in the lists are hardly voted and same happened to the first nomination that I just checked. Anyway, based of WP:GNG it clearly says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. So, if this is not notable I guess half of the articles on Wikipedia should be deleted. I am impressed from the profiles of people participated here and disappointed that notability is based on personal opinions as someone who failed to get the article down came again with a force. This Dr is well known in the field and helped 1000s of people to fight cancer and diseases, received awards, peer review journals, publications widely used in the medical field. and if this DR is not notable based on references then these
WP:PROF MaxiColeman40 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment -
☎) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
MOS:LISTGAP. This is a discussion, not a vote. That means that editors are expected to debate their positions based on Wikipedia policy, which you have singularly failed to do. Your stated reasons to keep do not meet what is required by ANYBIO and you should expect other editors such as myself to make that clear as part of the debate. Calling another editor "tendentious" is a personal attack and I'll ask you politely to strike it. Resorting to ad hominem argument against criticism is a sure sign that you have no policy to back up your assertions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Subject is notable in the medical field related to both Urology and Robotic Surgery. Subject wrote the first ever book on Urinary Continence and Sexual Function After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy which is a significant contribution in the field of Urology. See link: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319394466 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7BB0:950:303C:2403:1A6C:944 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the immediately preceding comment was by

User:IceChris77, and that editor had inadvertently failed to sign in and was editing so that the school IP showed up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for correcting my wrongful supposition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
WP:AFC and allow it to be reviewed, corrected and corrections/suggestions made instead of prematurely moving it into main-space where it didn't belong and wasn't ready and wasn't notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @Lubbad85: Regarding your comments about tendentious editing. I would suggest you strike, apologise and move on. It was a poor choice of words, since there was no evidence for it. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails
WP:NPROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I think does not meet the general notability criteria. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2019 (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.