Deletion of Brian Bowditch

Comment: I can't find evidence he satisfies any of the criteria of . The only one he might meet at present would seem to be criterion 1, namely "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". This is certainly not demonstrated in the article at present and the {{tl|notability}} template has been in place since June, which seems enough notice to do something about it. MathSciNet reports that  http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/mrcit/individual.html?mrauthid=251280 "Brian H. Bowditch is cited 484 times by 270 authors" (subscription req'd), topped by 53 for the 1995 paper in Duke Mathematical Journal to which C S refers above (see Wikipedia:TEACH#Notes and Examples for reasons to prefer this count to Google Scholar's). Based on MathSciNet's citation counts, his h-index is 13 (13 papers cited ''at least'' 13 times each) and his g-index is 20 (top 20 papers have been cited an ''average'' of 20 times each), which seems respectable for a maths professor aged 46 or 47 rather than outstanding. His proof of the angel problem is covered in that article, and while it's certainly worth including there, and I don't think that proof alone makes ''him'' notable (the angel problem is hardly the Riemann hypothesis after all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:TEACH)