Deletion of Roedy Green (2nd nomination)

Comment: To address sources found by Red Pen: how many other founding members were there, and what notability criteria does that cover? We don't normally consider people notable for founding companies or NGOs. Having a book listed in a bibliography is not normally considered a sign of notability, unless the book was used in a classroom syllabus. The joke paper is potentially interesting but would need to see how many and types of sources. Working to save the whales is admirable, but not inherently notable, unless there was significant coverage in that aspect. I suspect the reason it was a Keep in 2006 the notability rules were less developed and so people operated on  bias a lot more than today - kept what they knew and liked
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC)

Comment: I've looked through this and am tending to side with removal.  Are there any better quality sources or is there a source where he is more than a brief mention? I'm just trying to see the notability here, which might still be there but the referencing doesn't justify that yet.  If he were really notable one would think a unknown book would be eager to give him more than a sentence if they spoke with him but they didn't and they were only interested in his memory of that time, not him.  As to the previous AfD I cannot imagine why they all voted keep, I looked at what was there prior to TheRedPenOfDoom editing it and it was not sourced and very poorly written.  Kudos to TheRedPenOfDoom on finding these sources, maybe you can find something more significant to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Sources offered, especially http://books.google.com/books?id=mdo-95q2EYgC&pg=PA159 1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=Zv8N3PDlcEkC&pg=PA269 2, meet the requirement for multiple reliable independent secondary sources as required by  as usually interpreted.  Yes, yes, I get it, that these are not fabulous sources but I've lost count of the number of times I've !voted to delete on less but yet the consensus has been to keep.  The claim that these sources don't meet our usual standards is believable only if you've never participated in many AfDs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Appears to fail  &  from this page and his other page it would seem he, or someone that visited his website made both these articles based off claims on his website, I can't find anything to satisfy various sections in the Verifiability rules.  Having a website being proactive and writing batch files doesn't warrant a place on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCE||WP:SPIP)