Deletion of John Smelcer

Comment: This article is an unmitigated disaster. There is clear meatpuppetry occurring, and it's over nobody important. There are certainly mentions but ''in my opinion'' it doesn't clear  and . Further, it's despicable how some of the drama is either coming from Smelcer himself or people close to him. It's worth nuking and paving for  and sockpuppetry issues alone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: I don't understand how this can be anything other than keep.  There are numerous reliable sources to the Anchorage Daily News, clearly a reliable newspaper. He one two literary prizes that, though not terribly important, are at least university-level important.  Finally, he holds a named chair, which is criteria 5 on |the professor test. Now, I don't actually ''agree'' with that professor test, but I've been told before that it's practically non-negotiable--that the simple fact that one is a named chair indicates that one's university finds one to be notable, and that named chairs are generally recognized across academia as a mark of notability.  So we have the person meeting several points in , and meeting .  What is the deletion rationale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails . I'm also in the side if a person with a weak claim of notability requests the deletion of their article, it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)