Deletion of Robert Williams (geometer)

Comment: His magnum opus gets http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Geometrical+Foundation+of+Natural+Structure%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on 178 gscholar citations a good number especially for someone treading outside the beaten path. 253 worldcat libraries hold the 1979 Dover edition  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5939651&referer=brief_results. Evidence for  or 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: due to the complete lack of sources for anything about him. Regardless of whether or not he passes  or , we can't have an article if we can't say anything that is |verifiable and |reliably sourced. There does seem to be some notability for his book ''The Geometry of Natural Structure'', so per  it might be reasonable to have an article about the book and to have this title redirect to it, but even in that case we should rely on reliable sources (published reviews of the book) for anything in such an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTH||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: No showing of notability and, even worse, the subject of the article appears to be a |FRINGE mathematician who invents his own vocabulary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The subject seems to be active in research, but I'm not seeing evidence that the requirements specified in  are met. A non-trivial mention in a secondary source would help. There are a large number of links from other articles, but these can be discounted since they have doubtful notability themselves and the links are from references section coming from his authorship of ''The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure: A Source Book of Design''. The book is used as a factual reference only and is not an indication that the author had a significant role in discovery
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Firstly, "I get the distinct impression that the subject is notable although sources are hard to find" is not a criterion for keeping under Wikipedia policy: we need verifaible sources, not somebody's impression. Secondly, nothing in  can possibly be interpreted, as far as I can see, as meaning that being cited quite a bit establishes notability. Instead we have such criteria as "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", and "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society", and "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, '''as demonstrated by independent reliable sources'''" (my emphasis) etc etc, and Williams does not satisfy any of them. Thirdly, in answer to "If the claims here are true...", the "claims" in question are made on a web page promoting Williams's work for sale: Wikipedia requires '''independent''' sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: I get the distinct impression that the subject is notable although sources are hard to find. His work is widely cited, both in academic papers and books such as http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SzJ1G6QIqjEC&pg=PA2524&lpg=PA2524&dq=%22The+geometrical+foundation+of+natural+structure:+A+source+book+of+design%22&source=bl&ots=hli6EjocD1&sig=7XR-w70J4dlGe0rTw6sBRBd2RGg&hl=en&ei=2eUfS7DWLJGG4Qbt3ozpCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20geometrical%20foundation%20of%20natural%20structure%3A%20A%20source%20book%20of%20design%22&f=false CRC concise encyclopedia of mathematics suggesting that he may well pass . If the claims http://www.llanodelriobooks.com/products.html here are true, and his main work is as important as is claimed, then there seems to be a good case for inclusion if sources can be found to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:V)