Deletion of Rajesh Shah (2nd nomination)

Comment: This is an odd situation where there are a lot of sources for a , but there doesn't seem to be any indication that the person in question passes . To wit, here are the things we should look at for general biographic notability: 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Neither of those criteria are satisfied. The next thing we could look at is  which covers medical professionals generally (I note that ''most'' doctors are not notable enough for an article). The relevant criteria would be that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I just don't see evidence that this is the case. Shah is profiled as an ''example'' of a homeopath, but just because a doctor is profiled doesn't make them notable. I would further note that  warns us that we need to look carefully at sources due to the promotional nature of many fringe proponents. This area suffers from such in particular. On the balance, then, I say, ''default to delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:FRINGEBLP)

Comment: He is the subject of http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/starting-up/homeopathy-treatment-just-a-click-away/articleshow/2863288.cms one long article in ''The Economic Times'' and a couple of paragraphs in http://healthcare.financialexpress.com/200811/market01.shtml another in a subsidiary publication of ''The Indian Express'', suggesting there's probably more media coverage in India. I hate to say it, but that just barely clears  for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)