Deniz Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All coverage here is WP:ROUTINE besides one paper, where he isn't even the first or last author. Pretty clearly a WP:PUFF article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are a blend of press releases ([1]), trivial mentions ([2]), affiliated sources (this one from the venture fund that invested in his company, this one), the subject's own writing ([3]), primary source Q&A interviews ([4], [5]), and WP:TRADES coverage ([6], [7]). The Information (which I can't access) has the best shot of being WP:SIGCOV but we need multiple examples to pass WP:GNG and I don't see that. The only other potential criteria I could see is WP:NACADEMIC but Kent's h-index of 2 is extremely low; he does not seem to be an influential researcher. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just promotional fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]