Deletion of Michael Flood

Comment: seems to meet all the relevant notability criteria (ie, ).  The issues that the nominator (who I presume is the subject of the article, although one can't be too careful) bring up are, I feel, best dealt with by working to remove bias, and enforcing the  provisions rigorously, rather than through deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP)

Comment: Meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, ''Handbook of studies on men & masculinities'' (with a prestigious publisher – Sage), currently in more than 350 major libraries worldwide according to http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat. Also meets the more general  criteria; the news coverage uncovered by j (aka justen) clearly indicates notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Our relevant notability guideline in the case of this article is |wp:academic, at least one criteria of which appears to be satisfied here (the first, that the subject of the article has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline").  It's also worth pointing out the subject appears to be widely quoted in their field, at least according to a quick Google News archive search.  That said, the subject of the article is the person apparently requesting deletion here, but for all the wrong reasons, so I'll address the next part directly to him...  What you are bringing up are issues that can be addressed under |wp:blp and particularly |wp:undue.  The best course would be to outline your specific concerns on the article's talk page or even create a draft of how you believe the article should read and post it to the article's talk page.  We can go from there, but deletion isn't the proper (or justified) course of action, and I hope you'll reconsider and work with us to address your concerns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP||WP:UNDUE)