The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Discussion consensus indicated the subject meets WP:PROF. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 11:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor scientist with some idiosyncratic views on evolution. These views have garnered him some small notoriety in the blogosphere, but reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research. Article is currently completely lacking third party coverage. No indication that topic meets WP:PROF, nor any articulation of any particular notability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
;D. Sourcing search
- The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.
- If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may be still be appropriate.
- In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{ unreferenced}}, {{ refimprove}}, {{ third-party}}, {{ primary sources}} and {{ one source}}. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.