Yahya Birt: This one is an edge case.  I searched for quite a while for RS that discuss Birt in detail, both under Yahya Birt and his birth name, Jonathan Birt.  The most significant by far appears to be a short interview from 2006 in The Guardian , cited in the article.  The other two — from The Economist and The Intercept , also cited in the article at present — appear to be passing mentions only.  NACADEMIC Criteria 1a seems to be the only possible justification of notability — in Google Scholar , Birt does appear to have a decent amount of citations, but this is not the case in Scopus , either under Yahya Birt or Jonathan Birt.  The Google Scholar counts appear to have some duplicates, and as discussed at NACADEMIC, it does not do a good job of filtering legitimate sources from illegitimate.  WhinyTheYounger (WtY) ( talk , contribs ) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Islam ,  and United Kingdom .  WhinyTheYounger (WtY) ( talk , contribs ) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one seems like no harm in keeping, and he was interviewed in a notable newspaper as a subject expert: keep .  BhamBoi ( talk ) 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think Guardian interviewed him as a subject expert — it's a short series of questions about his personal conversion, etc.  No discussion of his work or the subject matter he is cited for (Islamophobia in Britain).  WhinyTheYounger (WtY) ( talk , contribs ) 17:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After coming back in and looking now, I think a case can be made that he passes NPROF C7 as he is quoted in The Intercept and The Economist .  Also, being one of The 500 Most Influential Muslims is a pretty big deal, considering there are about 200 of them...  BhamBoi ( talk ) 03:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to above^, I meant 2 billion.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 03:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just been through the list of books in the article, and find that there are two reviews of each Birt's first two books.  This means that the books meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books) .  This isn't in itself an argument that Birt is notable, but keeping the article about him (and perhaps developing it with a bit more coverage of his notable publications) strikes me as neater and easier than creating new articles for the books.  Since I don't see that Wikipedia gains anything by deleting this article and replacing it with articles on individual books, I suggest keep .  Alarichall ( talk ) 20:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they were authored books I would think it would make a case for WP:AUTHOR notability.  But one is an edited volume and the other is a translation.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete it seems he fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF , so I dont see a good case for notability here.  -- hroest 14:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 14:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : What I see is a short interview article from The Guardian and a Muslim 500 listing; the rest are trivial mentions or promotional.  More reliable sources would be useful.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 23:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I couldn't turn up any published reviews for his poetry book; this is not unusual for poetry books, and not a sign in itself of non-notability, but it was the only remaining hope I had of finding enough to make a case for notability.  The rest of the books are not the kind that help much for AUTHOR notability, and we seem to have exhausted other avenues.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (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