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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Claimed notability is that he invented a notable drug, but notability is not inherited; there are not enough sources that are not self-published. Page was created almost immediately after his death, and had effectively not been edited since, suggesting that it is unlikely that more sources will be released to increase notability. Smith(talk) 15:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Bupropion. It seems this article was created in spite of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He has some coverage in a local obituary, which can be used to document some facts about him after the merge. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep in addition to his invention he also published multiple research papers with 4 of them cited > 100 times. This is generally enough to pass NPROF around here (also taking into account the field and time when citation rates were lower). --hroest 19:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete with regret. I'm surprised to say I can't find any other obituaries besides the one in the Times-News mentioned above, or any other independent sources that even mention the subject. hroest above mentions paper citations and WP:NPROF, but two of those top four hits aren't papers, they're US patents. So not exactly our typical academic activity (have patent citations been discussed before? If so, I can't recall). So I don't think the citations show a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline", which is the point of that criterion of NPROF. Ajpolino (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to see criteria for PROF broadened to cope with scientists in industry from a few decades ago. Many of the routes by which academics become notable simply weren't done back then: there were fewer named chairs, and industrial people wouldn't have held them; industrial chemists didn't tend to publish as much, or be editors of major journals. And yet they changed the world, and people nowadays have a legitimate interest in who they were. It's an awkward situation. Elemimele (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while well-meaning and good-faith, the nomination here includes a misunderstanding of WP:INHERIT. The idea is that notability isn't inherited through some peripheral association with a notable something; the brother of a notable politician, the subsidiary of a notable company, the stablemate of a notable product. It is not, however, designed to prevent people from being considered notable for having made a significant contribution to their field. In fact, such an idea is directly contradictory to WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO #2. Making a notable contribution - authoring a notable book, directing a notable film, designing a notable building - is not a matter of incidentally inheriting notability from the thing you created. There is still an argument as to whether that contribution is significant enough to warrant inclusion, but that's a very different discussion. In this case we're talking about someone who created something that is on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. Yes, that's now a big list but it includes things like paracetamol, morphine and oxygen. This is something that is also the 27th most prescribed drug in the US. That's a significant enough contribution for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of the guidelines you linked. WP:CREATIVE lists additional criteria under which a person is likely to be notable, not presumed to be notable. And WP:ANYBIO #2 has a footnote saying "a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field", contradicting your assertion. It is quite possible for a book to be notable while its author is not, a wine to be notable while its winemaker is not, a song to be notable while its composer is not (or may even be unknown). In the same way, it is possible for a drug to be notable while its inventor is not, if the inventor has not been written about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And its possible for both to be notable, and for him to be notable for having made a significant contribution to his field, and I believe he has. That's not the sort of thing WP:INHERIT is designed to prevent. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has argued that he didn't make a significant contribution to his field. The guidelines you linked, however, do not suggest that this qualifies as an automatic presumption of notability without him also having been written about. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you missed the first word of that footnote which starts, "Generally..." and generally that's true. Specifically, in this instance, substantiation is in the form of consideration and inclusion in a list of things deemed essential by experts in the field. Such lists being, quite literally, an enduring historical record. And ultimately, that might not be enough for you (and that's fine) but it's more than enough for me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep agree with the arguments put forth by hroest. His papers have been cited several times so there is good impact of his research. Advait (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2021 (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.