Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debraj Shome (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   no consensus. None of the people suggesting delete had anything to say about the sources presented by MelanieN which is the core issue. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Debraj Shome
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable person or acievements. There are many doctors out there with much better credentials. Haleyscomet2 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Haleyscomet2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 23.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Is an Autobiographycal try. Thundersport (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Thundersport has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Paintballxtreme. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable advert. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator offers no valid rationale for deletion; the issue is not the subject's "credentials" but whether he satisfies Wikipedia criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. He does NOT meet the academic standard; his publications are few and citations minimal. However, he appears to meet WP:BIO due to multiple articles about him in the Times of India   and other publications  . I am uncomfortable that some of these articles tout unproven, unpublished technologies, but Wikipedia standards suggest that this degree of national publicity makes the subject notable, whether or not I approve of everything he does. MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 (Comment: note that the nominator is an WP:SPA whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to nominate this article for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)) 
 * Delete: Advertisement and non-notable. X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Less/ not important at all, this article should be deleted. Anubhab91 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I've disregarded the two !votes post the previous relisting as I did not evidence any valid reasoning in the due course of discussions. I've considered MelanieN's !vote quite strongly and would have kept this article. However, am relisting it to invite comments on MelanieN's sources, apart from any other points editors may wish to bring forth. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable. A doctor doing his job, no more notable than any other surgeon.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment With all these brief "non-notable" dismissive comments, has anyone even considered his repeated citations in the Times of India and other noteworthy Reliable Sources? --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see claims that he's a columnist, but no proof of that, and even so, what could we garner from his columns from which to write a biography? Several of the references are dead links, too.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - I am basing my "keep" vote, not on the sources in the article, but on the sources I linked to in my comment above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those sources is something that you can write a bio from. All are incidental mentions.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: No consensus to keep or to delete, in my opinion. The delete !votes consist entirely of brief "non-notable" comments without citing policy. I think keeping the debate open for one more week of discussion would not hurt, but administrators can feel free to go ahead and close this discussion if their opinions are not equivalent with mine.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Verifiability is a policy. There are no reliable sources that this person is a notable doctor.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Published papers are not heavily cited (maximum 14) and most are case reports. Even correcting for the obscurity of the field of ocular tuberculosis, there is no demonstration of high impact publications.Novangelis (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (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.