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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varshil Mehta[edit]

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

User appears to have just wrote an article about themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs a lot of work. For example, see "Furthermore, in his next study, he showed an association between maternal early pregnancy triglyceridaemia and the subsequent risk of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, and preterm deliveries." That is a published study. It is not a source reporting about the study. Also see "An article published by him recently, showed that lipid profile in pregnant women rises during the second and third trimesters.[10]" That is referring to this article. That is not a WP:SECONDARY source reporting about the article. That and other content can be deleted. After the vanity content is deleted not much will be left. An article for Journal of Medical Research and Innovation might be notable. This article does not seem notable. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability[1]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Dr. Varshil Mehta. Thanks for your comments. If you guys feel, it can be edited and made better, do let me know. I can help, and if you want to have it deleted, You are most welcome as well. MedTime (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted it most likely won't be restored to be made better. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing it so minutely. Its better to have it deleted, since people do not feel like it is notable enough! Thanks a lot :) MedTime (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not satisfying notability standards. — soupvector (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely more neutral now (thanks to other editors), but continues to lack sufficient evidence of notability. — soupvector (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel, that shall be enough. Please proceed with deletion. Thanks.MedTime (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, let me give some more details about the page 1) All the important articles have some citations which means, I can include those as secondaries. Secondary, why I feel that it is notable: I have spoken to the Dr. Jagdish Khubchani, who is also the director of World Association of Medical Editor, and in his opinion, I am the youngest person to hold a position of an Editor in Chief and Publisher of a Medical or Public health Journal. Furthermore, I have also applied for the same in Guinness World Records and Limca Book of Records. I am expecting the decision soon as well. Secondary I have represented India (Actually South Asia to be honest, but they have mentioned India in the pic) in a fully sponsored trip by Elsevier to give a speech at Bangkok. Also I was awarded with Indian's Best Young Researcher Award by Grabs Charitable Trust. I have also published many articles which are from good source, At an age of 25 years, I feel that it is quite notable especially from India. Also, since I have made the article, which is a problem as well, I declared the COI from the beginning. Furthermore, I has also requested every one to edit it by placing the editing request. Also, i requested JJMC89 to review it before publishing, which he saw it later. If you guys still feel that it is not notable, I have already mentioned that please go ahead and delete it without even wasting a second. Thank you every one for your time and have a great week ahead. I accept the decision may what ever it is! Thank you everyone and stay blessed :) MedTime (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jagdish Khubchani is not a source and what Khubchani said needs to be sourced. Many articles are reviewed by people who make mistakes before they were added to articlespace.

You added sources that you authored or co-authored such as this article. That is the original article. You would need to find a source reporting about it to show WP:WEIGHT that it should be added. You would not add the original article. You would add the source reporting about it. See Edzard Ernst for an article with many independent sources. To show an article is notable there must be many independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? https://lemire.me/blog/2017/04/07/science-and-technology-links-april-7th-2017/ It is reporting my salt article. There are many like this reporting the original articles. MedTime (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a blog and may not be a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about the original articles citing my articles? Not only for this but for all other pages as well? In case I edit some other page, do I need to add the secondary source or the original source? In research articles, we generally cite the original articles since they deserve the credit. Thanks. MedTime (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to be clear, I did not review (any version of) this article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yup, I never said that you did. I just said that I requested you to review and you saw later (In your talk page, it showed that that it has been posted already on net).MedTime (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Also appears like there's conflict of interest involved. Vignyana^talk 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is done, can we now delete this page? I had placed db author, but it was revoked by some one. It is now wasting every one's time. Thanks. Hopefully, one day, every one will together write an article about me. I wont ever write any biography for sure from now onwards here but will write at some other places where they accept it. ;)MedTime (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @QuackGuru for all the editions and every one who tried to improve it. I was angry earlier, but now I am really happy, that people here are really great and they atleast care to help here. Starting with Dr. james, I saw his profile and he is a master piece. Still he cared to see the article and special thanks to Quackguru. Thanks. I will save all your edits and will use at some other place where I have to show case myself. :)MedTime (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you do become notable in the future, editors can start with this version. I did a quick cleanup. There still needs to be reliable independent sources to show that you are notable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Indeed. I really wish they use your edits in future. Thanks :). How can we delete this page now?

It usually takes about 10 days. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm okay.. Can I make it blank at least? Otherwise, the tag of deletion does not look good. MedTime (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral now. Others have edited it. It is too late for a tag. I recommend you take some time off from this and focus on other things. It could be deleted sooner if there is WP:SNOWBALL delete votes. You may be able to delete your picture from Wikipedia commons while you still can. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done and Done. Thanks. Adios every one. MedTime (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional CV, no reliable source coverage to suggest that he qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Created by the person himself, thus violating WP:AB and WP:COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. As bad as any company advertising their products. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. If you click here you will notice it also says "homepage". If you click on homepage it leads to here. Everipedia does not know they are using the page for his homepage. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all the non-LinkedIn-type sources I can find are this, this, this and this. They are all merely indexes of studies that he has either presided over or taken part in. There's no independent coverage which suggests that his work has had a significant impact on his field of medicine and I can find few reliable peer-reviews. The autobiographical nature of the article is so severe that a substantial rewrite is needed to remove [[WP:PROMO|promotional material to comply with the neutrality policy. DrStrauss talk 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and case of WP:TOOSOON .Subject is 26 year old and upcoming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 13 September 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.