Deletion of Manjeet Singh Riyat

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per . This is one burst of coverage, but we need sustained coverage over a period of time to gauge his notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: Plenty of coverage in respectable sources such as the BBC and Guardian means that the subject passes .  The nomination's reference to Twitter is a violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DOX)

Comment: per  and fails . A consultant in a medical field isn't something that is rare, and saying he was the first X to be Y is strectching notability the same. Also getting tedious, as a radiographer myself, I work alongside doctors and see the effects of COVID, but every time a doctor with a fairly routine medical career tragically dies, it isn't an excuse to create a memorial page. Think of their wider career and the notability guidelines of parent projects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: if being the first Sikh in the role was notable there would have been media coverage when he was assigned that position. All the coverage is because he died of COVID19, therefore  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per  and . If someone can provide significant coverage in reliable sources beyond obituaries, ping me and I'll gladly change my !vote. In the future the topic might still gain notability if this is retrospectively found to have historical significance, but it is too soon to see that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: Enough coverage in sources. Notability is not an evenly calibrated bar. Some subjects/topics are more or less notable. This subject is notable  enough given the sources. add: Subject is notable cademic Further, why an editor creates a notable article is not significant. We all create articles for personal reasons; reasons for creation have nothing to do with the quality or notability of the article. (And it looks as if the tweet was posted before the article was created
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP: A)

Comment: Quite a few people seem to re-parroting 'NOTMEMORIAL' because someone looked off-wiki and brought back an innocent Twitter comment which is now being presented as grounds for deletion. I feel  has been met through a number of respected national media outlets publishing quite ''detailed'' obituaries of Singh which have focussed on this individual's achievement  as the first Sikh Accident & Emergency Consultant to be employed anywhere within the UK's National Health Service, as well as reporting his contribution to academic emergency care. I note https://globalpunjabtv.com/first-sikh-emergency-consultant-manjeet-singh-dies-of-covid-19-in-uk/ this Punjabi site also writes about him. It's a reality that we often only manage to get enough good sources to write about people ''after'' they have died. (see Andy Nisbet for one such example I created). Nobody with an ounce of sensitivity goes on Twitter and says, "hey, I'm so pleased person xxxx has died - now I can write about them on Wikipedia". But that's often how we get enough sources to jump over the bar of demonstrating notability (i.e. the world's mainstream media have taken note of them), as here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO)

Comment: I would be opposed to a merge as that list should only be for people who are notable enough for their own articles. Delete as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)