Deletion of Richard Kaczynski (2nd nomination)

Comment: It is always tough for guys in, ahem, less academically respected fields.  However, my view tends to be that even if the world thinks they are a quack, if they are a leading quack in their field, then I guess they deserve their article under .  I won't cry though if it gets deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: His respectable but modestly cited publications at Google Scholar do not qualify him under . Neither does his position as an "adjunct assistant professor", a title which apparently carries no teaching duties and is shared by dozens of other people.http://dental.udmercy.edu/programs/orthodontics/faculty/index.htm His music career is obviously way short of meeting . It is almost impossible to search Google News for him because he shares a name with Ted Kaczynski's father; adding various discriminators such as "thelema" or "magic" does not turn up anything of significance, so he fails  for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ARTIST||WP:BIO)

Comment: Does not seem to pass notability requirements under  or . I agree with the various arguments presented above for a delete. As for the book ''Perdurabo'', it is currently in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat. I am not sure this is a ringing endorsement of notability. If a subject is an expert in a very narrow topic, the combination of the subject’s notability and the topic’s notability should add up to a level that would justify an article on WP, which I don’t think is quite the case here. Perhaps a note in the Aleister Crowley article, under a section titled something like “Biographers”, would be more appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)