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)

Sanjay Razdan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Delete Sources are all very spammy as is the article in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep WP:ANYBIO subject received many awards and has made a widely recognized contribution in his field. WP:NOTPAPER. As to the votes to delete because the article needs a rewrite...WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Lubbad85   (☎) 17:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO: "... has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." What is the well-known and significant award Razdan has received? The awards mentioned in the article are so well-known that not a single one of them has a Wikipedia article. "... has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians)." What are the multiple history books that contain the in-depth coverage of Razdan's contributions to his field? Not one of these multiple history books is cited in the article. Notability requires verifiable evidence, not mere assertions. This article obviously fails ANYBIO as well as GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried, but can't find WP:RS per WP:Before. I would love to improve the article away from the precipice.  He seems to be notable in his world (and maybe common usage) — he seems to have good credentials, but not provably notable per WP:GNG in Wikipedia.  We are trying to build an encyclopædia, and those are the rules.  7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Henry Dalton, Donald L. Custis and many other like these must be deleted as they lack references. So, please better decide if these are policies or something else. And if there are references in question like someone mentioned above is a press or something you can remove. I was creating a page for a second DR who is helping humanity but I think I should not or better I'll ask in TEA HOUSE before creating a new one because what I'm raeding on WP:GNG and WP:PROF MaxiColeman40 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - MaxiColeman40 I am also surprised - To make your point...Mr. Whipple and Charlie the Tuna each get a stand alone article...let that sink in. I hope you do not get discouraged from starting articles. Also RexxS You have stated your opinion - and now you should let the editors vote without being WP:Tendentious  Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to indent your responses. There's a good guide at 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen I don't know anything about this topic, so someone else might've used my school's IP. IceChris77 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my wrongful supposition.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment 2600:1700:7BB0:950:303C:2403:1A6C:944 The book you detailed is not written by the subject. The book is full of articles written by other physicians and he is only the editor. WP:NPROF is the most stringent bio policy that Wikipedia has and as it is so exacting you can almost tell at a glance whether a person satisfies the standard, unlike WP:GNG which for the most part is subjective. I would suggest the next time you write an article, leave it up at 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)
 * Comment 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)
 * Delete. fails WP:NPROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think does not meet the general notability criteria. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.