Deletion of Raphael Lataster (3nd nomination)

Comment: the opinions above are correct that  is not relevant if this person meets the GNG.  But I'm not at all sure that they meet the GNG.  The only source that is in depth, about Lataster specifically, and unquestionably independent is http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm this one.  The others are either in very obscure sources, or are written by Lataster themself (including the Washington Post one mentioned above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: Per nom and clearly Fails  and also fails  .The subject is an  Australian academic even if he represents   scholarship simply lacks independent coverage .Per Lankiveil above could find only one independent article about the subject.Other sources are obsure and the fact that the subject or  everyone who writes one article in the Washington Post does not make the subject notable  or one mention  https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q1zlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT78&dq=%22Raphael+Lataster%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Raphael%20Lataster%22&f=false in a book does not make him pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:FRINGE||WP:GNG)

Comment: He is covered in numerous books for his opinions. Like them or not,  is not a reason for deletion. I believe some of the points from the nominator are subjective and debatable and the last deletion discussion resulted in participants voting keep based on him being reviewed by reliable publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: While it would be correct that  over-rides  (which he clearly doesn't meet), I don't believe, like other editors, that he passes  either. Even if the sources rose to the level of GNG, I think it would fall under the classification of , since it is almost all derived out of his December 2014 essay
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: The subject does not have to pass  if they pass GNG.  From what I can see on google now he has at the very best a "very mixed academic reputation", BUT he is covered by reputable independent reliable sources, for example the ABC in Australia and the Washington post in the United states.  I suggest the subject passes  sufficiently to pass GNG.  Not liking the subject's subject of interest is not grounds for deletion despite how , or poor scholarship, it might be believed to perhaps be.  See the second AfD too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NEXIST||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Fails rof, nothing for GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: I don't see how  is supposed to be met, and {{tq|self-published two books}} clearly isn't enough for .  I don't see a  case either. As for , I'd like to see a specific link here that supports GNG being met; the main coverage in the article by reliable sources is coverage of https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?hpid=z2&utm_term=.76a97d016fc5 his WaPo piece
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:GNG)