Deletion of Mark Patton (archaeologist)

Comment: From the #General notes:|General notes section of : ''It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details.'' So, no sources no keep. As for the unsigned delete vote above,  does mention being an elected member of the Royal Society as a qualification, the subject of this article is aledgedly an elected member of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, I do not know enough about these institutions to say if one is more prestegious or selective than the other, but again without verification the article should not be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: More fundamentally, that the Royal Society of Arts "has more than 27,000 Fellows...who have achieved — or who have the potential to achieve — eminence in their profession or calling" tells us that being one of its Fellows isn't the kind "highly selective honor" called for in .  -- post by 75.150.76.129 -- sorry, I forgot to sign
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: As I mentioned when removing the earlier PROD, the relevant guideline is , and as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts Patton meets criteria 3. The lack of sources does need to be addressed, but note that, also per , coverage in secondary sources is not a requirement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)