Deletion of William Lane Craig

Comment: According to the article, "One of his most notable contributions to the philosophy of religion is his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument." If you look up his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument, there has been little academic interest in it for the last 30 years. His main fame on the other hand seems to be from debates, which received some press, mostly from Christian websites (some fail WP:RS). It is telling that 7 of the sources in his article are from himself or CV and some others are links to youtube. If he ''is'' an academic it should be reflected in the sources. If he is a famous debater when there should be secondary sources, not youtube clips. As it stands the article fails . No notable work in the field of philosophy (or Christian thought), no major award, no major academic position, not the editor of a major journal and never been elected to a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The subject is an academic, with a h-index of 23 or 25. This is a clear keep under . On top of that, there's enough news coverage to independently satisfy . Any content disputes belong on the article talk page. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.73.65|202.124.73.65
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:N)

Comment: VanArragon's book ''Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion'' (cited in the article) has Craig in a list of "key thinkers" in the subject. The nomination makes no sense at all (the Dawkins non-debate is not even mentioned in the article, for example) and Craig is clearly notable for his work in philosophy and theology, as indicated by the citations and discussion of it. There is a clear failure of  here. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.73.43|202.124.73.43
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Craig and his work are discussed in multiple articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals cited by our article. That seems sufficient to make him notable per criterion 1 of . He has also received some attention in the news media in connection with the Dawkins non-debate mentioned by 91.89.69.192, but that's not what he's primarily notable for, and the article currently does not even mention that affair
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: There is no question that William Lane Craig qualifies under the categories listed in . Even if one were to completely ignore his academic contributions (briefly highlighted above by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)