Deletion of Brian Martin (professor)

Comment: A search of Google Scholar with ''author:Brian Martin'', and picking out the relevant hits, gives cites of 287, 83, 81, 65, 57, 60, 53, 43, 41, 36, 36, 31, 26, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, 23, 23, 22, 21, 21, 20, 20...etc. giving an h index of 21. A clear pass of rof #1. Again, it is surprising that the nominator of this AfD missed this data
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Subject's |fringe views are mostly self-published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Clarifying some confusion here - the nom has repeatedly said that secondary coverage is required to meet the notability standards of . However, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)&oldid=339980920 the page as of now has criterion 1, which says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Note 1 says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". For the purposes of academics, their work being cited can provide evidence of notability. This is necessary because there are plenty of notable, prolific researchers who do not have articles devoted to them. A search for Brian Martin in Google Scholar turns up his 1979 "Numerical inversion of the Laplace transform..." article, which is shown as cited in GScholar 287 times. Note 2 of  cautions that GScholar may underestimate citation hits; it can also overestimate the number of low-quality hits, but in this case the vast majority of hits are to peer-reviewed journal articles. Regardless even of Martin's mathematical and physics research, he is a prominent researcher on scientific controversy and scientific dissent, and is cited in news articles for comments on such topics (see news hits above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)