Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Mehta

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Mehta

[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)

Person does not appear to be notable. Only item appears to be the Sasketchewan Centennial Medal, but that seems to be widespread (4200 recipients).Spiralwidget (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much of anything for sources found, staff listings at the university.Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One triple-digit-citation publication ("From biotechnology to nanotechnology") is not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and head of a school within a university is not a high enough administrative position for #C6. The most likely path for notability would seem to be his book publications; I found one authored book Risky Business: Nuclear Power and Public Protest in Canada (review: ProQuest 218816023) and two edited volumes Environmental Sociology: Theory and Practice (group review: doi:10.2307/591614) and Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law (reviews: doi:10.1177/1075547007302696 and [1]). But with only one of these authored and only one review of it, it's not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. I only found one additional review for Risky Business (doi:10.2307/3552366) so WP:AUTHOR does not seem to be met. Found some passing mentions through Gnews but no real significant coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein and Presidentman. Additional references might be out there, but my feeling is that they are not. It's a fine line, maybe there are. I may userfy this to try and see if there are any more in the future. But I think the statements already made are accurate and I cannot dispute them. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2022 (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.