Deletion of Ian Dowbiggin

Comment: He clearly passes #C3 by virtue of the FRSC. The article needs some care per  (e.g. is lifesitenews reliable for this topic?) but does not seem overly biased one way or the other to me, and even if it were I don't see a case being made that deletion is the only possible cure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BLP)

Comment: I've already weighed-in above and would like only to draw the closing admin's attention to a few facts. First, the opinion that the subject's notability is borderline is nonsense on its face. Dowbiggin is a prolific author whose impact and notability are conclusively demonstrated by significant institutional holdings, for example http://www.worldcat.org/title/merciful-end-the-euthanasia-movement-in-modern-america/oclc/49248925&referer=brief_results 1476, http://www.worldcat.org/title/concise-history-of-euthanasia-life-death-god-and-medicine/oclc/57494087&referer=brief_results 562, http://www.worldcat.org/title/keeping-america-sane-psychiatry-and-eugenics-in-the-united-states-and-canada-1880-1940/oclc/36225156&referer=brief_results 474, http://www.worldcat.org/title/inheriting-madness-professionalization-and-psychiatric-knowledge-in-nineteenth-century-france/oclc/21372395&referer=brief_results 373, and so forth (there are more). These statistics are a clear pass of  #1 and likely surpass a large fraction of the academics currently on WP. Second, some of the "delete" arguments above seem to be based on pragmatism ("Who's gonna fix it?", "Better to delete than face an ''uphill struggle''"), the existence of socking ("this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article"), and ''ad hominem''-based agenda ("Dowbiggin is an idiot and a religious crank"), all of which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As with numerous other previous cases, this article should have the courtesy of being kept and properly cleaned, even if it involves a little work. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Per . Actually, the ordinary procedures to deal with the so called "inaccuracies", have been clearly ineffective. Even it has been overlooked each recomendation to be patient with the people who claims to be affected with contentious contents, instead in this case the affected one, Dowbiggin,  was promptly blocked accused of sockpuppetry and he was even entirely ignored, when he was clearly a non'wkipedian, not used with the wikipedia procedures but solely trying to warn about and to delete some contentious content against him. Contentious and surely false contents which finally were found to be unsourced and based on dubious sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive138#Ian_Dowbiggin_2. Indeed contentious contents published by a real very disturbing sockpuppet (called
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: We don't delete ''clearly notable'' people just because they don't wish to be discussed on Wikipedia. That's one privilege that's reserved for borderline-notable people. But this guy is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a clear  #3 pass on its own, and additionally his books have been reviewed in scholarly journals
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: clear pass of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Remember that ikipedia is not censored and that the subject does not  the article. We should move the debate away from about the subject and towards the notability and BLP status of the article. After reading through, it seems fine and sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:OWN)

Comment: Contentious contents dealing with living people, moreover when based on dubious sources and disputed by the subject, should be aggresively removed. Any user, included the own subject, are invited to do so, per . The ''onus probandi'' lies on those who are attempting to publish those contentious contents and they should '''first''' discuss and provide reliable sources '''before''' publishing anything, meanwhile those contents should '''not''' be included at all but removed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)