Rajesh Rajan: Checking for WP:GNG , I find sources but they are all profile puff pieces that read like press releases.  Also, based on this current discussion , I am concerned that these could be promotional articles as they are all similar in tone and all recently published.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:NOTCV , at best WP:TNT .  I don't see any reasonable sources for GNG or WP:BIO .  I am very skeptical of this peice, written by "FPJ Web Desk" , others are more clearly not independent or passing references.   — siro χ o 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kuwait and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NACADEMIC .  Rajesh is a fellow of several prestigious academic societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of London (FRCP), the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (FRCPI), the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE), the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (FRCPG), the European Society of Cardiology (FESC), the American College of Cardiology (FACC), and the American Heart Association (FAHA).  These fellowships are prestigious honors and demonstrate Dr. Rajan's exceptional contributions to the academic community.  passes WP:NACADEMIC , C#3.  Dr. Rajan holds the position of Chairman of the Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists , a prestigious role where he represents the nation's clinical cardiologists in their interactions with the federal government.  Additionally, he holds membership in the Indian Advisory Board of the American College of Cardiology , and he serves as the Managing Editor of the Annals of Clinical Cardiology.  He is also the President of the Association of Indian Alumni of RUDN University as well as the Association of MD Physicians.  passes WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 6.  Dr. Rajan has a considerable number of research papers that are featured on platforms such as Google Scholar , Research Gate, and the world's largest library, National Library of Medicine .  He invented the Rajan's Heart Failure (R-hf) Risk Score, a tool that aids in assessing the risk of heart failure and proposed a new classification for single coronary artery (SCA): Rajan's and Kotevski's TYPE-IV (R-IV-C) modified Lipton's classification.  It was defined as type-IV quadfurcation of a single coronary artery from the right aortic sinus.  His involvement in providing commentaries on the role of cardiology in current events highlights his expertise and recognition as a leader in the field 1 , 2 , 3 .  He was invited to discuss pricing matters by National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority .  He participated in the Indo-Soviet Cardiology Research Project of KIMS Hospital and RUDN University.  All these contribute to his notability.  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of this page I am going to assume you have done more research on the sourcing and would ask that you share the secondary reliable sources associated with the fellowships.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 : The fellowship with the American Heart Association is supported by the reputable Arab Times article .  According to ScienceDirect , he is an elected fellow of the American College of Cardiology , link .  His membership with the European Society of Cardiology and other academic societies can be verified at the European Society of Cardiology .  Also, see ORCID ( link ), University of Strathclyde ( Link ).  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 06:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Arab Times article doesn't say he is a fellow.  The Science Direct has a list of recently elected fellows (from more than a decade ago) but is there anywhere to verify this?  I see that these are listed in his bio in different locations but anyone can put anything in their bio, it's self-published and not independent.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does accept these sources for academic matters, and they alone provide sufficient evidence that Rajan holds fellowships in various reputable societies. These sources aren't from platforms like LinkedIn, Crunchbase, or IMDb, where information can be easily added by anyone. Instead, these websites undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the information they present is accurate. In addition to those sources, I also provided the reputable Arab Times article . This article not only features Rajan but also includes other individuals. If you take a look at the article, you'll notice that it primarily revolves around the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology , where these individuals are quoted or invited to share their insights. The reason for their involvement is twofold: first, they are fellows of these prestigious societies, and second, they are highly respected cardiologists. Here are the links to back up these claims Prof. Karen Sliwa – Fellow of American College of Cardiology, is verified here and here Dr. Raja Dashti – FACC, source , source , Dr Pinto – FACC, source Rajesh Rajan – FACC, source Mohammed Al Jarallah – link . VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 17:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion is about Rajesh Rajan, not the others so they would have no relevance being included in this discussion. Above I asked about the "reputable Arab Times article" as I cannot find where it verifies his fellowship. Can you please point out where in that article it verifies such? I also asked about the Science Direct article and verification outside that. Are you able to address those concerns? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know the discussion is about Rajesh and not the others.  However, I mentioned the other three individuals featured in the Arab Times article to provide further support for my arguments.  These individuals were not arbitrarily selected by the publication to share their views; rather, they were included due to their affiliations with these societies (American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology).  To validate their affiliations, I provided sources for each individual, allowing for verification of their fellowships.  In addition, i have previously provided multiple academic sources that confirm Rajesh's fellowships in various societies which are credible and widely accepted for academic matters.  They are not LinkedIn, CrunchBase, IMDb, or social media websites where anyone can create an account and add information.  These academic websites are not publicly editable; their content is solely managed by their respective staff.  They undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the information they present is accurate.  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: The AFD nominator is asking User:VirenRaval89 if they could supply some reliable sources to support the claims made in this discussion.  Any other editor is welcome to help out as well.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At least #2 seems to be partially supported by Times of India and FreePressJournal , although his position is reportedly president and not chairman.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the comment from Siroxo above about the Free Press Journal.  There is also this discussion which is relevant to that article.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think even if the sources contain WP:PRIMARY material or are PR they can still be used just to establish the basic fact of whether the subject has that position or not, because a straight and obvious lie could open up the editorial staff of the publisher to some liability risk for misrepresentation or dishonest reporting.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe in the U.S. since laws require that placements such as these are marked as native advertising.  However, these publications are not U.S. based so not sure what type of liability would be involved.  Regardless, any publication doing this (and many of them have) shouldn't be considered reliable for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we even have a good understanding of the significance of Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists .  It was only founded in 2008, and in large part by the subject of this article.  Cardiology has a long history in India, dating from the early/mid 1900s, so I'm having trouble judging the significance of such a new organization in the context of this article subject.  It could be an important development or it could be little more than a vanity org, I really can't tell at this time.  This is probably a very different circumstance, but I am slightly concerned about a multi-year "gossip-loop" situation like what's been noted regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laxmaiah Manchikanti occurring.  (Hence my earlier note of TNT for this article).  Thanks also CNMall41 for that discussion link, very helpful context.  — siro χ o 04:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point.  The article mentions a dispute with other cardiology societies which is interesting, the article creator was also blocked for using sockpuppets.  Might need further review.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We have a healthy discussion going on which is always a good thing.  But we need more editors taking a position, not just on the state of Indian sources, but on their use in this specific article.  I'm pushing you to take a stance.  I realize being a thoughtful participant in a deletion discussion is a lot of work but it is really up to you what happens with this article.  And since they have been editing since the last relist, I'll ping User:VirenRaval89 again to see if they want to respond to the queries here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Indian Association of Cardiologists (from what I understand) reviews the latest medical information and sets clinical practice guidelines for the country.  They'd recommend which treatments are effective, which medications to use and for how long, when surgery is indicated etc. I suppose heading this society would imply importance.  The various fellowships are more notable I think; I read about the Irish fellowship, you have to be recommended for it by two other people already in the "club" and have to have extensive knowledge and experience in the field.  I'm not sure under which notability category he falls, but this individual is obviously a highly educated doctor with extensive clinical practice experience and knowledge.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that the fellowships must be "substantiated through reliable sources."  Those do not exist here other than some self-published bios.  For the "Irish fellowship" (I believe you are referring to the RCP ), it is in no way highly selective.  While you stated someone has to be nominated by two others, someone can also self-nominate .  It is basically something you pay for, get approval for, and then allowed to use the title.  It is the same way a company makes the Inc. 5000 list.  Regardless, we simply do not have the sources to definitively say he is a fellow for any society that is highly selective of fellowships.  On a side note, he is actually one of the co-founders of the IAC and would think that if his role in "heading this society" was of note there would be more press about it.   -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does accept academic sources for these matters.  I even provided the reputable Arab Times article to verify the fellowship claim.  Please take a moment to read my comments above.  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly Delete - Per fail WP:GNG & WP:NBLP .  Àvî Râm7 (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly delete?  Why are there SNG guidelines in place if all subjects must pass GNG?  I'm pretty sure you haven't read the comments thoroughly.  Please read my new comments where I have provided more evidence.  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  I am no expert on the professional politics of Indian cardiology, but I cannot help but be skeptical of a notability claim anchored to being the co-founder and chairman of a purportedly major Indian cardiological association that was only established in 2008 .   And so many of the other superficially impressive credentials fall apart on close inspection (as discussed above) that it doesn't seem prudent to extend any benefit of the doubt.  I think we need the full NBASIC here, and I'm not seeing any indication or argument that it is met.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I provided the reputable Arab Times article to verify the fellowship claim. Please read my new comments where I have provided evidence and additional sources to verify the fellowship claim. VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 17:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I am not sure if you saw my previous comment but the Arab Times does not verify that he is a fellow. Can you point out where in that article it says so? I am unable to locate it. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Editors are still undecided on what should be done with this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  12:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw all your previous comments.  The Arab Times article I provided above focuses on the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.  Rajesh and the other three individuals mentioned in the article are fellows of these societies, which is why their remarks were included in that article.  Please review my earlier and recent comments above (dated 30 July) where I've provided evidence and sources to substantiate these claims.  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 15:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an assumption.  Let me ask directly.  Where in that article does it say he is a fellow?  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not an assumption; it's a fact, and I've already proven it in my previous notes. Let's set aside the Arab Times article for now. What about the other sources I provided earlier ( [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] )? Are you saying the information given in these sources can be manipulated? I've previously mentioned that these sources are accepted by Wikipedia for academic matters. They are not platforms like LinkedIn, Crunch Base, IMDb, or Instagram, where anyone can create an account and add information. These academic websites are not publicly editable; their content is managed solely by their staff. They undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the accuracy of the information they present. VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's not set it aside. You are asserting that the reference says he is a fellow. If it is a fact, I am asking you to point it out. I cannot see anywhere in that reference where it says he is a fellow. Saying so is a proof by assertion . I have already addressed the references you mentioned above in previous comments. They are bios which can be written by anyone. Can you show me from these organization websites where he is listed as a fellow? Assertion is not proof of existence, especially when bios cannot be used to determine notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will also note that as the original creator of this page, these are the best references you have presented so I will assume there is nothing better (I have been unable to find any and previously asked this question to you).  I understand your want to ! Keep a page you created, but I am not seeing how any of these references show notability in this case.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already addressed the references you mentioned above in previous comments.  They are bios which can be written by anyone.  The discussion here is not about who wrote the bios, but rather about the accuracy of the information provided in those bios and the reliability of the platforms hosting this information.  Are you saying that these sources ( [14] [15] [16] [17] ) are not credible because anyone can create an account and add any information they want?  As I have repeatedly mentioned, these academic websites are not like platforms such as LinkedIn, Crunch Base, IMDb, or Instagram, where anyone can create an account and add information.  These websites ( ScienceDirect , European Society of Cardiology , ORCID , University of Strathclyde ) are not publicly editable, and their content is managed only by their staff.  They undergo rigorous monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the accuracy of the information they provide.  They are widely used for academic purposes including by Wikipedia and are considered reliable.  What about this list I shared earlier?  It's not even a bio; it explicitly mentions Rajesh as a fellow of the society.  Is that list also not credible?  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 14:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you show me from these organization websites where he is listed as a fellow?  No universities/colleges in the world display names of their candidates on their websites.  Can you show one single university does that?  VirenRaval89 ( talk ) 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - ultimately I come down here based on the lack of substantial biographical coverage in any source with a reliable byline.  It's also a bit concerning that Rajan is listed by Google Scholar as having an h-index of 8 ; my understanding is that leading research doctors typically have h-indexes in the hundreds (although this could just be an indexing failure).  signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: delete