Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashank 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. This closure will allow for article restoration should this subject's notability become more evident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Shah[edit]

[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)

Nonnotable physician. Closest things to a claim of notability appear to be:

founded a surgery center, the Laparo Obeso Centre;
had some interesting patients, including "one of the youngest patients for bariatric surgery"; the heaviest British person; and the heaviest woman in Asia;
A few awards, non apparently significant enough to merit notability;
Has served as the president of three different medical societies in India relating to obesity.

None of these amount to notability; and having performed a WP:BEFORE search, I can find nothing more that suggests notability. TJRC (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC),[reply]
Comment Being president of three different medical societies relating to obesity might pass criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC if one of the societies is a "notable national or international scholarly society". Perhaps the societies in question don't count as notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds from your bullets above that you're already giving reasons for why some trimmed down version of this article should be kept. No idea why this needs to be deleted. Several independent sources about his work. Yes there are some self-published sources and other sections that should be deleted, but I don't understand the move the delete the whole article. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. As I said above, none of the points I listed amount to notability. The fact that they can be put in bullet-point format doesn't make him notable.

(Although Eastmain makes a good point that if one of those medical societies is a "notable national or international scholarly society" he may meet WP:NACADEMIC. I'll leave that to the discussion. None of those societies has so far been deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; but that's not conclusive.)

To be clear though, I nominated this article for deletion based on the lack of notability of the subject; not on the quality of the sourcing, which can always be cleaned up. TJRC (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - almost notable. I wish we could get some physicians to look at this.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:00, 20 June 2023 (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.