Steve Hoberman: He had an award, but that award does not confer notability.  There was a spammy list of books (look in the history) but without secondary sources (reviews etc.), and Technics Publication seems like a fishy publishing outfit.  Much of the remaining sourcing is on websites, resume-style material.  The editor who denied the PROD mentioned WP:THREE but I don't even see ONE significant independent secondary source.  Drmies ( talk ) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some book seller listings, mostly PR items I find.  I don't see notability with the sources given either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Finance , Engineering , Technology , Computing ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Lecturers, at US universities, are unlikely to be notable through WP:PROF , because it is a title used for people hired to teach classes but not expected to have signicant scholarly achievements.  (In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title is totally different, more like assistant professor in US terms.)  Anyway, I didn't find evidence for academic notability or WP:AUTHOR based notability for the subject.  I don't think the DAMA award is enough for WP:PROF#C2 and its award citation page doesn't provide enough depth to count as one of the multiple sources needed for WP:NBIO .  I note that the article history includes accusations of undeclared paid editing but I don't know what the evidence for that might be; if it can be provided it might strengthen the case for deletion, but I think that case is clear enough already.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not really a case for WP:Prof here.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete undisclosed paid-for spam.  I PRODed this earlier but it was contested by another editor.  There is no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF.  GSS 💬 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not pass WP:PROF .  Qflib ( talk ) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I contested the PROD earlier here [3] with some reasons of excluding the primary sources and not sure whether the job, Data modelling instructor (or related) is notable or ever be.  I can see it's not inclusive and not encyclopedic.  Maybe WP:NPOV problem and SIGCOV.  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as undisclosed paid spam per GSS.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you or GSS respond to requests that you provide evidence of being undisclosed paid editing rather than just throwing around evidence-free accusations, please?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein : they are solid and have already been shared with the functionaries.  GSS 💬 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So "delete because I have secret evidence that I'm not going to tell you"?  I can understand the reasons for not publicizing the methods by which you might have discovered such behavior, but the price for not publicizing it is that it cannot be used as evidence in an open and evidence-based procedure such as AfD.  See also The Trial .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, delete because there is no evidence satisfying notability criteria, as I mentioned in my ! vote above.  The reason for not publicly posting the details is that it contains personal information that could violate WP:OUTING .  GSS 💬 06:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you provided a guideline-based deletion reason.  Lepricavark didn't.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A ping would have helped.  The editor who created this article is currently pursuing the deletion of an article about a company created by Gurbaksh Chahal , an individual with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors to try to whitewash his own biography.  There are numerous suspicious editors who have turned up at that AfD to support deletion, all of whom are parroting the same types of arguments that I recognize from prior involvement with Chahal's article.  Based on all of this, I believe that the creator of this article is an undisclosed paid editor.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't find anything that suggests he is notable Devoke water 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete