Deletion of James Grime (2nd nomination)

Comment: Note, I was the reviewer who passed the article for AfC, and also the requestor that the article be unsalted, so assess bias accordingly. As I see it, Grime is a professor at the very prestigious University of Cambridge https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/about-us/staff-profiles/tutor/dr-james-grime, and passes , specifically criteria 7. As noted in the last AfD, hes been a writer for the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/profile/james-grime, part of the Millennium Mathematics Project through which he tours an Enigma machine, and discovered a set of non-transitive dice. The last AfD was almost 6 years ago, Grime has been busy since then. Almost all of the sources have been published since then. Grime certainly passes  as a popular mathematician, considering as well his viral contributions to Numberphile, and there is a strong case for NPROF 7
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: A lot of people getting hung up on  above, but  is a much more easy test - which the subject fails according to my . I could not find any instances of  of the actual subject of the article, all I could find were one-or-two-sentence-long descriptions of him in articles about popular mathematics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:BASIC||WP:BEFORE||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: to Numberphile – basically per {{u|David Eppstein}} in the last AfD. Grime focuses on public engagement so is not likely to pass most  criteria, but it's perfectly possible for him to be a notable populariser per #C7 or the . At first glance I assumed he would be—''Numberphile'' certainly is notable—but on closer inspection the sourcing just isn't there. Most of the references in the article are to non-independent sources or passing mentions of Grime in popular articles about mathematics. I searched quite hard and couldn't find anything better. The closest is probably https://books.google.dk/books?id=QUNhDwAAQBAJ&q=james+grime#v=snippet&q=james%20grime&f=false ''The Best Writing on Mathematics 2018'', but we can't have a BLP hanging off a single, one-paragraph contributor bio in one book. But it's not a bad article. In the interests of |preserving appropriate content we should redirect to the project he's most associated with (Numberphile) and tag it with {{tl|R with possibilities}}. It can be revived should more independent sourcing emerge. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Thought I had !voted here. Looking on  alone, I don't see any independent coverage of him, and some of the articles don't mention him at all. Almost all of it is self-generated content or social media-generated content. I don't see how  is met, so fails both the notability guideline and the academics guideline at this time, possibly also . Please don't redirect, either - not closely associated enough with the proposed target
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPROF||WP:PROMO)

Comment: with a note that it may just be . The most substantial recognition seems to be his inclusion in the 2018 ''Best Writing on Mathematics'' collection. There just doesn't seem to be enough to base an article upon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: not easy working through the refs but in the end none of them make a robust case for notability. The whole thing reads like self promotion right down to the little advert for their own shop. Fails . '''''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: See also eletion review/Log/2019 October 12
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)