Deletion of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Comment: I used the same argument against another kook, (who, I believe, was decided to be notable under , although not otherwise under  or ), and now believe that the argument does more harm than good.   seems to make this kook notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: AFD is not for cleanup. The subject satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: yes, the sourcing is weak (I hadn't realise how weak - times change, standards change, but not every article keeps up) but Forrest & Gross and Migliucci's books are reliable secondary sources. And he does pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per ttack page. If you look at the original article it's fairly clear that the purpose was to discredit Wells.  A lot has been added since (including some sources) but still there seems to be a negative  slant.  Also his notability is not asserted.  The article starts by saying he's an author but then goes into his religion.  I don't think an article on a notable author, say Orson Scott Card, would start out: "'''Orson Scott Card''' is a science fiction author. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he has said the teachings of his religion have been an inspiration for his work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)