Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalabh Gupta

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. To the article creator, AFDs are usually determined through consensus by how reliable and independent the sourcing is which provides SIGCOV. I happen to look at this article and its primary source and found some very close paraphrasing that bordered on a copyright violation. But if you'd like to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabh Gupta

[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)

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP.
Sources provided (in order):

(1): Business Daily: A puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(2): Mifeed: The title says “Blazing Trails In Biotech”, need I say more? Same as above. Published in the same week as the above source and another puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(3): Company website: Primary source, as this is the company's own site. Self-published content.
(4): LA Harbor News: I am unable to visit the site and therefore cannot vet this. My browser tells me this is an unsafe site. Visit at your own direction.
(5): Founders Network: This is another primary source, as it is self-published. Details are taken from an event hosted via EventBrite here.

Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your feedback on this. Is the main issue with the sources? I'll look for some more. What do you think about the article itself? I think he's an interesting subject. When I saw that he was the first person to work on Wall Street and being a physician at the same time, he caught my attention. I thought that might count as noteworthy and interesting enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Thanks SilverhairedHarry (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi, thank you for replying on here. The sources are, of course, a huge concern as they fail to meet WP:RS. The individual mentioned in the article also fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP, I was unable to find anything online that we can consider notable. Being a physician on Wall St. wouldn't inherently make him notable, unfortunately. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 19:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation, source assessment and arguments for what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source, that I think might count towards Notabiilty. It's about rare diseases and has a section about the subject. I added a couple details to the article just now and cited this:

"The hidden epidemic: Tackling rare diseases", Patient Daily, 4/2/22

https://patientdaily.com/stories/667580664-the-hidden-epidemic-tackling-rare-diseases SilverhairedHarry (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi I’d like to vote Keep on this article. Another editor pointed to WP:GNG and WP:NBLP saying this article failed to meet those rules.
- WP:GNG says “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” If you go see the sources currently in the article, I think as a group they meet this criteria. There’s coverage of him in pretty good detail in 4 different news stories. I did see some criticism earlier in this discussion about some of the source that seem like they might have been coordinated for news interviews. Definitely valid. But I did find more sources that I think count. More below.
- WP:NBLP says “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” I’ve found multiple published sources. They seem to be secondary. While a couple seem like they might not count (see my paragraph above), I tracked down another source- the story about rare diseases - that seems to qualify under NPLP. I also found 3 instances of published research and have added to the article.
- I think this is a quality-written article about a subject that some people might be interested in reading about. That’s my two cents. Hope it helps. SilverhairedHarry (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I learned in school and (re-learned here) concepts called reasonable person, quality being better than quantity, and objective truth, which, I know, nowadays are unpopular, but call me reality based. I also learned in the school of hard knocks about gaslighting and sealioning. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO article; the sources are poor (either unreliable or non-independent or both) and do not contribute to notability on any standard. The assertion that he is the first Wall Street analyst to work as a practicing physician is sourced to an unbylined, unreliable source that is likely straight from the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2025 (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.