Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[Sameer Mehta]]=

:{{la|Sameer Mehta}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sameer_Mehta Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sameer Mehta}})

Notability not established. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability (doctors). -- Bharathiya (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) is marked as inactive. A better guideline to test this against would be WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete My customary google search yields very little other than a Twitter page and a few physicians databases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. As for WP:PROF, none of the 9 criteria seem to apply here which leaves Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), which is inactive, but he doesn't meet that anyway, so that leaves nothing, and therefore I must vote to delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete Insufficiently notable per WP:ACADEMIC which is the only applicable category for his inclusion. He has a number of hits at [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sameer+mehta&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar], but on some he is just one of a long string of authors; and on articles where he is the lead author, the citation rate is not terribly high. I could change my mind based on additional evidence, perhaps from someone with more sophisticated search tools. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

: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.