Deletion of Robert A. J. Gagnon

Comment: We have specialized notability guidelines because we agree that for some topics the General Notability Guidelines are unsatisfactory.  Nevertheless, there are {{tl|afd}} where contributors mistakenly or mischeiviously try to insist that we use the GNG or a different specialized notability guideline.  I agree with those who have argued Gagnon has met the criteria of .  Allowing an individual to have a standalone wikipedia article should be neither a reward or a punishment.  That decision should be based on policy, which this article complies with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: As failing  in general, regardless of the subject's apparent polarization of his favorite topic, which is apparently not enough to raise above basic notability as of now. I was involved in the talk page discussions and I have to admit I doubted there was much here from the first revdel that brought the bio to /N. As to the point about book holdings, it might be possible that the work is more notable than the author, and perhaps if that continues to be the case and someone bothers to create an article for his book then this can be re-created as a redirect or something
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BLP)

Comment: Criteria for rof#1 include scholarly cites. On Google scholar these are 22, 10, 7, 7, 4 to give an h-index of 4. Although theology is a very poorly cited subject, this index is extremely low. Maybe too early
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a |whole page of hoops? The answer to  my  own  question is 'I  don't  know', but  as I  am pledged to uphold and implement  policy  at  Wikipedia, I  have to  say that  this article clearly  fails to  meet those criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Passes  based on book holdings, as discussed above. Apparently his views are controversial; all the more notability. Gagnon's book ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice'' http://books.google.com/books?id=oMmhig_oWOQC&pg=PA20 has been called (by one writer not on his side) "the definitive exposition of the traditionalist's case" and Gagnon himself "the foremost traditionalist interpreter" on the topic. http://books.google.com/books?id=JlB9EdVmuBYC&pg=PA22 Another writer describes ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice'' as "one of the most cited" traditionalist works on the topic. Seems like a very clear "keep" to me. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.75.16|202.124.75.16
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: As a professor Gagnon is a fringe and reactionary character who fails PROF. But as an author popular with American Christian social conservatives who are working to limit homosexuality, Gagnon meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)