Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick 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. Clear consensus that this fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Rick Mehta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLP1E as most of the coverage is about his being dismissed from Acadia University over a controversy. Does not seem to meet WP:NPROF. Nothing else substantial to confirm inclusion per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete His career prior to his firing doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. (Assistant and associate professors are seldom wiki-notable, and I can't find anything which makes him an exception.) You don't get an encyclopedia article just because you were fired for doing a bad job. Controversies come and go, and we shouldn't mistake the endless self-duplication of the Internet outrage machine for reliable coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the time frame for the decision? Would a month be alright? I created the article as a stub and haven't worked at all to beef it up. Is there any harm in leaving it there for some time, so as to have a relaxed discussion, and to let the article grow if it is going to grow?CountMacula (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions usually run for one week, unless a consensus fails to form during that time, in which case they can be re-listed. Three weeks is the maximum, which (a) doesn't happen often and (b) mostly happens if the topic is so niche-interest that nobody commented at all during the first two weeks. On the other hand, articles can be incubated pretty much indefinitely as subpages of your user page or in Draft space. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I found nothing to show he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF and all of the coverage appears to be about his firing, which makes this a case of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. I see no indication of WP:GNG being met. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPROF is not a necessary condition for inclusion. The subject happens to be a prof, but can be included for reasons other than his research, namely WP:GNG.CountMacula (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, which is why I also stated that "I see no indication of WP:GNG being met." Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not news. This is a non-notable professor. His firing is newsworthy but does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article currently has 18 references to reliable sources: at least 10 different authors writing in CBC.ca, the Canadian Press, Global News, and other publishers including national, province-level, local, university, and aboriginal sources.  Further, the coverage of Mehta dates from before he was under investigation by Acadia and even before the Beyak controversy and the petitions, sustained over a period of nearly one year (Sept 17, 2017 to Sept 12, 2018) so far.  So WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by the article.
 * WP:NPROF is roughly sufficient but not necessary for inclusion, so need not be discussed further.
 * Invocation of WP:NOTNEWS above is unexplained and baffling. I see no match between WP:NOTNEWS and this article.
 * Now, looking into WP:BLP1E: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event [and two other conditions]." Mehta has been at the center of several events that received significant coverage: 1) controversial positions taken by Mehta, and defense of Beyak, 2) investigations by Acadia, 3) cancellation of the panel discussion at McMaster, related to Mehta's involvement, and 4) the dismissal of Mehta by Acadia and the rationale for it.  Per WP:WI1E: "What is one event? ... Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days."  I emphasize: "a single specific act that has taken place", not a hypothetical event that might take place in the future.  The coverage of Mehta before the dismissal was in the context of various controversies raised by Mehta, not any single event, and the dismissal was no more than hypothetical--not yet an event--at the time of that early coverage.  Therefore one of the three conditions necessary for WP:BLP1E fails, and WP:BLP1E itself fails.
 * Failing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG provides for inclusion.CountMacula (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CountMacula (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * No, the article does not currently have "18 references to reliable sources". Many of the sources are redundant with one another, but there are more fundamental problems. One is WP:PRIMARY and counts little if at all towards notability (interviews are always questionable in this regard, and those in student newspapers even more so, since they do not indicate the wider world taking an interest in the subject). The College Fix has all the earmarks of a flagrantly political source that should not be treated as reliable on this topic. The article claims that "another panel member had refused to participate after learning that Mehta was involved"; no reliable source confirms this. According to The Hamilton Spectator, "Ayaz would not say which panellist withdrew in protest and which panellist's presence was deemed objectionable." The College Fix, after glowingly describing Mehta as a "free-speech crusader", mentions him only briefly as one of multiple would-be participants, quoting a tweet of his that has since been deleted (and is thus not verifiable). A passing mention in an unreliable source &mdash; there's no case for notability there. All we're left with is an event that was scheduled to happen on a college campus, and didn't. In other shocking developments from the university, the food in the dining hall is horrible, and students were late with their homework and asked for extensions.
 * Likewise, online petitions are scarcely noteworthy. I could start a petition today to have Mehta direct Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and it would get signatures. That's the Internet for you. (Back in the day, a pickle got 1.5 million Facebook fans because somebody wanted it to be more popular than Nickelback.) The existence of a couple local-interest news items about it elevates the story, but not by a whole lot. At most, they indicate that if the article deserved to exist, then a brief mention of the petitions as part of the background to his dismissal would not be undue weight.
 * In short, I'm still just seeing "area man loses job for doing job badly". The investigations are part of the dismissal story, and would again at most be background, if that story were worth having an article about. Trying to make one controversy into multiple "events" doesn't help the article's case.
 * Oh, and lifting lengthy statements verbatim from sources (e.g., Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship stated that Mehta's views may be unpopular but they do not constitute an attack on anyone; years of teaching the large sections of the required introductory psychology courses, Acadia had changed his teaching allocation so that he would be teaching smaller courses) is plagiarism even if the sources are provided. Academic dishonesty raises the concern that the article would have to be razed and rebuilt from scratch even if the topic were notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the innuendo of academic dishonesty, nothing in the article goes beyond WP:Plagiarism, which, while improper, is explicitly not considered dishonesty: "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as their own".  But of course having learned the importance of in-text attribution (as opposed to footnotes alone), I will try to remedy the defects indicated.  Note also what is not plagiarism: "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information ... lack sufficient creativity to require attribution." applies to "Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship", approximately half of one of the phrases mentioned.  Further, I note that neither of the mentioned phrases is a "verbatim" quote, as claimed.  Each one has some differences.  To whatever extent the editor is honest and acting in good faith, I appreciate the correction, and, again, I will try to remedy the defects indicated.
 * On redundancy of sources: of course there are references to multiple sources covering a given event: that is required for WP:GNG. But in those cases the material comes from different writers and publishers.  They are not for example, identicle wire-service articles reproduced on multiple websites.  "Redundancy" needs to be clarified.
 * The petitions mentioned in the article are not cited directly. They are important story elements in reliable sources, supporting general notability.
 * I don't concede the remaining supposedly-disqualifying claims above against the sources, but if the claims do stand, the remaining sources are more than sufficient for WP:GNG.CountMacula (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The text you copied goes well beyond the bounds of the "simplest and most obvious way to present information", and your modifications were minimal. For example, said a two-person committee would make recommendations after determining whether there were breaches or threats against Mehta's academic freedom is practically identical to said a two-person committee will review Acadia's investigation to determine if Mehta's academic freedom was breached or threatened and then make recommendations . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both the CAUT spokesman and the author of the CBC.ca article apparently took the text in question directly from the primary source: https://www.caut.ca/content/ad-hoc-investigatory-committee-examine-situation-professor-rick-mehta-acadia-university Maybe you could suggest a better way to say it.CountMacula (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My honest, good-faith advice would be to wait until that investigation all shakes out, and try writing an article then. It is conceivable that sustained interest (including, say, coverage of whatever career Mehta picks up next) will carry him above the notability bar. Six months or a year from now, the people who have argued for deletion here may have cause to change our minds. It's been known to happen. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well thanks for that, but I'm interested in this plagiarism issue. The way I look at it (I guess the same as the spokesman and the author) is that the meanings of "breach", "threat", "academic freedom", "recommendations", etc. are all essential to the overall meaning of the story: changing them would change the story.  Really I would like to know what you think is the best way to convey the information ethically.CountMacula (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally none of those terms are "essential to the overall meaning of the story". Echoing committee-speak jargon is not what Wikipedia is here for. In some hypothetical future version of this article, a sentence might begin, "The Canadian Association of University Teachers formed a committee to inquire into the matter, which eventually concluded that...". But we are months or years away from being able to finish that sentence &mdash; another indication that this article is, at best, too soon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum Oh, and WP:WI1E is an essay, not a policy. WP:BLP1E is a section of a policy. We have to follow policy, but we are under no obligation to treat the particular phrasing of any essay as binding. (That particular essay is almost a decade old and has scarcely been invoked in all that time, so we can hardly say that it's a central concern of the Wikipedia community. Its Talk page was last commented upon in 2009. People haven't even taken enough notice of it to argue about it.) If anything, this case most closely resembles that of Scott Janke, whom WP:WI1E mentions as an example case that did end with deletion. As it says, "Being fired was one event". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Second addendum I noticed you asked on my Talk page about "the process by which a deleted article goes into "incubation" as a userspace draft and is then reinstated as an article". Sorry for missing that; I generally try to answer questions I get on my Talk page, but this one must have gotten lost amid multiple notifications, or something (I didn't notice it until I was archiving old discussions last night). Anyway: pages that are actually deleted aren't generally put into Draft space, since re-creating deleted articles is generally frowned upon. However, "draftifying" an article as an alternative to deletion happens sometimes. It's not a common outcome, though, in my experience; for example, this archive records only two instances in academics-related deletion discussions since April 2017. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to look into that.CountMacula (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2018 (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.