Deletion of Tobias Broeker

Comment: a single review is not enough per  or , there need to be multiple independent discussions of the person and his work in the literature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: albeit weakly. The Iwazumi review is an excellent source, but it's the only reliable, independent treatment of Broeker and/or his work that I could find. If we're going by  #1, a single journal review doesn't suffice. Neither is a single review sufficient for  #3 (needs {{tq|multiple independent periodical articles or reviews}}). If additional sources could be presented that demonstrated significant coverage of Broeker, that would probably convince me, but none outside of passing mentions and interviews turned up in my search, and the other ones listed in the dewiki and enwiki articles are not independent or don't really go towards establishing notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: To clarify (see also further comments below): the author seems to have one significant work which is held by reasonably well-respected institutions; but his notability otherwise is very borderline; and the niche topic doesn't help. That would probably make this something like . Weighing all of that, I wouldn't object to a page being created about the author's work itself, since at least what can be found indicates it likely is acceptable per  and/or  no. 3 (review + RILM seem to confirm that). The author's name could then be kept as a redirect to that
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:TEXTBOOKS||WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Not only was  a valid speedy deletion (and therefore the article's overly promotional), he distinctively fails , per my discussion at the DRV (which also found the article cited above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G11||WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources mentioned by RandomCanadian are insufficient to show notability per  and indicate at most marginal notability under  (we usually require multiple published reviews of the author's work and that's not in evidence here). Since this is a  case pushes it definitively into the 'delete' column
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTO)