Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Shah


 * 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 d e lete. Many of the arguments to keep are grounded in non-policy, such as a dislike for the nominator, and do not address the concerns expressed in the deletion rationale. east. 718 at 00:52, January 20, 2008

Jawahar Shah

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No references from reliable sources. Pioneer University appears to be this. Hardly a major institution. The article claims he designed "Hompath", if this is the Hompath he's talking about, then his contribution is being, at the least, greatly exagerated. Hence, non-notable, delete. Adam Cuerden talk 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete The publication record would not be notable if he were an orthodox physician in the US medical establishment. But I do not know whether the same standards apply to him, as Indian homeopathic journals are not included in PubMed. This is not meant as a negative comment about this profession there, just a question about what standards are applicable. DGG (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should set the bar lower for fringe academics than mainstream ones. If anything it should be higher, as they have more to overcome to convince me that what they do is worth paying attention to. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article itself raises concerns of advertisement, and the individual himself doesn't seem to meet the academic notability threshold. Ante  lan  talk  07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep pending looking more at sources - isn't this a peer-reviewed pub? Not sure it suffices for WP:N, but it is suggestive.  --Jim Butler(talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - sufficient references available based on . Addhoc (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked through the sources that came up? It's hard to see how to make an article from them. Adam Cuerden talk 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added 2 refs to the article. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only reliable non-fringe source I see is the Times of India article, and he's only mentioned trivially in that one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hardly mets even Wikipedia's by now famous how-low-can-you-go levels of notability.  RS' supplied fail to establish why he is notable much less to that required of WP:PROF.  The article reads more like WP:SOAP than WP:BLP.  Shot info (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Forms merely the latest in a long line of AfDs by Adam Cuerden showing his strong anti-homeopathy POV Peter morrell 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve meets notability criteria. please note nominating editor currently subject of RFC Abridged talk 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is merely the latest in Adam Cuerdon's campaign to eliminate as many articles related to homeopathy as possible. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So keeping an article because you don't like an editor overrides it's inherent lack of notability? - bodes well for the future of Wikipedia...  Shot info (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A stronger argument would focus on the merit of the claim, rather than on opinions of the claimant. Ante  lan  talk  18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, the article needs work, but with less than 20 content edits, it is merely a baby. I did a Google search on the subject and it pulled back several thousand relevant results including information on his published works (research, software, books, tapes, etc.). Notability is all but established; thus no reason to delete. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realise there's several people with that name, right? Adam Cuerden talk 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. I made sure to discriminate between say the restauranteur and the homeopath. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For now, because it is likely that there will be better sources. It isn't right to delete new stubs which people are working on and which promise to have enough sources in the end. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I can see extending some latitude to new stubs, this article has been in existence for about 7 months, which is more than enough time that we can reasonably ask for good sources. MastCell Talk 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly this particular homeopath is not notable. I would be more inclined to say we should have an article about him if he had received a bit more mainstream attention. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2008 (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.