Deletion of Marek Kukula

Comment: would fail a pure  test as shown by  JoelleJay but as Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich there is additional press coverage with over 140 press articles including in-depth profile in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/14/how-do-i-become-an-astronomer, coverage in the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35880795 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16602840 etc. There is also this https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6887460/dr-marek-kukula-astronomer-doctor-who-book-child-abuse-images/ story about a conviction for child pornography (though from the Sun
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: The article was created (via AfC) in 2015 and the https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Marek_Kukula page views show it bumbling along nicely - median daily pageviews 5, the occasional day of 80 or 100, and a short-lived peak (max about 270) in 2018. His notability was not challenged until now. It is being suggested that we delete the article because of something which has only been reported in deprecated sources. If the ''Mail'' and ''Sun'' aren't good enough for us to use as , then information from them, which no other newspaper has apparently found worthy of comment, should not be being used to delete an article. Yes it's a horrible crime, but the article should survive without mention of it if we have no reliable source. He's written a couple of popular science books, which I've added to the article. There are probably many, many other biographees in Wikipedia, both BLPs and historic, who have ghastly skeletons in their cupboards, irrelevant to their notability, which no interested editor has come across and added to their article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)