Deletion of Robert R. Cargill

Comment: Promising young academic does not yet satisfy  or  or . Notability from a prof does not rub off on students. Nor does rubbing elbows with a movie star satisfy . The page seems to be a self-promoting conflict of interest, and the subject seems to be taking the discussion too personally. It is the article being judged, not your person. Get tenure at a well regarded university, write a widely used textbook, serve on panels, get career research awards, publish lots of articles in refereed journals, and you'll be a shoe-in. Lots of Wikipedia editors have been graduate students, have had notable professors, and have published articles, without ever becoming notable. Most college professors are not notable. One research project generating a wire service story or university press release which got covered by the popular press  does not satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:N||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: I have no objection to user editing one page, but when that use turns out to be the subject, and all the information is already duplicated on their user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IsraelXKV8R then I can't see a reason to keep an article which fails , and then brings up serious Wikipedia:Autobiography|WP:AUTO,  and mainly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COI||WP:BLP)

Comment: The dispositive guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (academics).  I see at least one award that looks notable (criterion 6), which would satisfy .  Also, he was reportedly hired by Nicole Kidman to instruct her in religious studies, which is noteworthy in itself, albeit a single item.  Author / subject request. Disclosure:  I am the one who walked the subject through the OTRS process (after initially tagging this article for deletion as a copyvio), so I have been communicating with him for the past few days. I don't know him IRL. --'''&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Nothing in the article asserts that outside sources view the individual as notable. One published paper is not itself notable, unless outside sources said so, and this article then referenced those sources. License or no, it reads like a resume, and Wikipedia is not a webhost. See also . Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)