Deletion of Malcolm Kendrick

Comment: a  currently only sourced to primary sources; I find a few articles by him on other sites but nothing about him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:BLPFRINGE)

Comment: after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Abamji, Anarchie76, Billwrlhopkins have hardly any edits on Wikipedia but all voice the same conspiracy theory talk, two of these users were inactive on Wikipedia for months. I think this is a case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT)

Comment: I have not found any references that point to studies conducted ''by him or researchers under his direction'' that support the claims to notability espoused by previous commentators. Nearly all references that I have found are pieces that merely quote him talking about other studies. To me, that doesn't meet "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail" (|GNG). I respect the subject's right to have an opinion, as a medical professional, but I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Not |notable, |general or uthor|specific. olicies and guidelines|Policies and guidelines concerning |BLP's are clear: {{tq|"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."}}. This would not be dependent on individual editor likes, dislikes or "crusades" but sourcing. "Crusades" aside, the opening statement does include "Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources..." and that has become apparent. If or when there is enough sourcing I would agree that having "fringe" topics is not bad but that would also include bio-content to make the article more than just a SEUDO|Pseudo-biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:A||WP:P||WP:BLP||WP:PSEUDO||WP:notability)