Deletion of George Michael (professor)

Comment: The history of the PROD is water under the bridge now. What I'm seeing now is a very thinly referenced article on a scholar who doesn't seem to be notable. Using topic keywords to http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Islam+OR+theology+OR+extremism+author%3A%22George+Michael%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 assist the search I find GS hits for him, but with very few (15, 11, 5, 4, 2, 1) citations (a h-index of 4 is insufficient for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: As mentioned when the prod was declined, the requirement is ''not'' that the article reflect the subject's notability.  But rather than the subject be notable.  It's unclear to me whether this has been understood, and a  analysis of notability outside of a review of the article has been undertaken by the nom.  The nom is required, before making a nomination due to sourcing or notability concerns, to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist."  Given that this had already been pointed out at prod, and the nom again limited his criticism ''to what is reflected in the article'', I wonder whether this step was taken, as required.  For example, by reviewing articles in ghits searches such as http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=right-wing+%22george+michael%22++-singer&btnG=Search+Archives&num=100&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a this one, and gbooks searches such as http://books.google.com/books?q=right-wing%20%22george%20michael%22%20%20-singer&num=100&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&tab=np this one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)