Deletion of Charles E. Wicks

Comment: The nomination takes a lot of time and words to explain that the nominator doesn't really want to delete this page.  And notice that all this text has resulted in the creation of another page to hold this discussion.  By convention, we will not delete this discussion page, which will be kept visible in perpetuity.  So, why then are we considering deleting the page in question, which is more encyclopedic, while retaining the discussion page which is just |bureaucratic and of no general interest?  It seems that the nominator thinks that there are rules which require us to do so.  But we have a clear and fundamental policy which tells us what to do in such cases: "|if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".  And the rule in question is, in any case, just a guideline which explicitly says that exceptions are possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTBURO||WP:IAR)

Comment: fails #1 without major research awards or highly cited papers or obituaries, but I think one could (weakly) argue that he passes #4 with the textbooks he authored. Another issue is the lack of any strong RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NPROF)

Comment: While there's little sign of  C1, I believe the  C4 case from the apparently fairly widely-used textbook.  The other book is reasonably highly cited, and I think it saves this from being a .  The article is in relatively poor shape, but as usual, 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NPROF||WP:BLP1E||WP:DINC)