Deletion of Mototaka Nakamura

Comment: A few days ago I tried looking for more sources indicating notability and to find better independent coverage (including expert criticism and mentions in wide mainstream papers).  I mostly fell on advocacy org sites and blogs, including Friends of Science's (that has a misleading name BTW) and self-published pamphlets like the one I removed Special:Diff/948266459|here (despite it being a Google books link, it's not a book).  I'm also not convinced that  is met.  When good expert sources evaluating fringe claims are rare (and we need them to cover the topic) it's usually a sign of  and Wikipedia is not the place to popularize things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Not enough reliable secondary sources mention him. I have dug around on JSTOR and Google Books. The only sources that mention him are his own works. Most of the sources on the article are his own publications.  are seriously lacking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: So far, the only standard of notability this page might reach is  criteria number one, based on two papers that may demonstrate a "significant impact" of this academic's research. Based on Google Scholar hits (which is not the preferred method, but is what I have available), this academic has https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125%3C2074:TROHAL%3E2.0.CO;2 one solo-authored paper with ~250 citations and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007%3C1870:DOTTCB%3E2.0.CO;2 first authorship on a paper with ~150 citations. As a non-expert in his field, I do not know whether this is sufficient for significance. All his other papers are fairly poorly cited
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: Citations are only moderate in a high citation field, and I don't see other signs of notability.  I'm concerned at how the article uses his past affiliations to give him a veneer of respectability (if he has a current academic post, I can't find it).  A single book (self-publisher even?) isn't likely to give , and the coverage mostly consists of the review by Tony Thomas and various rehashes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)