Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Dahiphale

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Dahiphale

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

CV of a non-notable urologist. He gets a mention in the Times of India for being part of a news conference about a conference, and another story about clinics he set up with his wife. Other than that, all the sources were listings, and Google doesn't seem to turn up much more. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does some academic work but doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion, and in a more general sense he doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO either. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant promo. really bad sign when grownups are reaching back to undergrad awards to claim they are awesome. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG, and the article looks like a case of WP:RESUME. Brief mentions in newspapers, even The Times of India, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:ACADEMIC is not applicable as the subject has not carried out any major academic research at any point in his career. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two brief mentions in the Times of India already cited as sources in the article are neither in-depth enough for WP:GNG nor enough to verify the claims in the article, and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 18 April 2017 (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.