Deletion of Leonard R. Brand

Comment: Citability in GScholar is pretty meager, with top cited paper having a measly 39 hits. Much much less than we ordinarily require  for satisfying #C1. Moreover,  makes it clear that  and pseudoscience cases are generally to be routed through  and there is even less evidence that the subject passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:FRINGE||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: GS gives an h-index of 9, so does not pass rof#C1 or the "Professor test
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: The abundance of scholarly peer-review and citations of this person as indicated by DonaldRichardSands and Cesiumfrog does indicate the passing of .  While many might not agree with him, controversial opinions and possibly discredited theories is not a basis of deleting a biography
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: a total of 80 or 100 citations for his work and mention of it on some (fellow conservative SDA) minister's website does not meet either  or . Breathlessly describing Brand's claims as "otherwise as-yet unexplained" does not alter the fact that his claims claims of underwater footprints have been widely debunked as ''failing to explain'' far more than they explain. Nor does ''unsubstantiated'' claims of noteworthiness and notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: I first saw this AFD links at the Notability noticeboard and have been watching with interest since. I don't have a dog in the fight from a theological/political/philosophical perspective, I'm just looking at it based on the merits of the article, and I'm afraid that I don't think this subject is notable. Most of the existing sources are problematic for various reasons. 5 of the 21 sources are Brand works, whereas the article should be based primarily on secondary sources. And of the secondary sources used, it some seem to only mention Brand briefly and in passing (like the Ronald Numbers source), or are brief mentions of arguably trivial information (like http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19640330-V63-36__G.pdf#view=fit this and http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PUR/PUR19700416-V69-42__B.pdf#view=fit this, which only mention him in brief sentences, and in my view fails  because even if the sources are reliable, they don't constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources"). Many sources are used not about Brand but about how people feel about views that he holds (like the Ecklund source). Some are clearly ''not'' reliable sources, like http://universitypress.andrews.edu/catalog.php?key=198 this blurb for his book or http://www.creationsabbath.net/resources/articles/a-historical-review-of-the-creation-debate.html this source, which doesn't discuss him in depth anyway. Perhaps more importantly, I found practically nothing about Brand on my searches in Lexis Nexis, Newsbank or Google News and, if he were notable, it wouldn't be so difficult to find those sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)