Deletion of William A. Dembski

Comment: No reasons given for deletion of this largely notable public figure article, very well sourced. all problems identified by nominator can be dealt with standard editing -see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Article is well-sourced, neutral and stable. Also, none of the issues listed by nominator is a #REASON|reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: nomination does not cite a legitimate reason for deletion. Wealth of coverage demonstrating topic is notable. Whilst  is generally ''not'' a valid reason for deletion, I would note that this article does in fact comply with  as it ''does not'' "'give equal validity' to minority views such as pseudoscience". Likewise no indication (let alone a coherently argued claim) that it violates  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:VALID||WP:MNA||WP:RNPOV)

Comment: The reasons given are not reasons for deletion, and all really belong in the talk page for ongoing work on the quality of the article. The  guideline that is cited by the proposer is actually a clarification that neutrality does '''not''' require giving equal balance to both sides. The article as it stands does meet  | neutrality as understood on wikipedia. The idea that the article violates  (Make Necessary Assumptions) is just weird; but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. The article does meet  (Religious Neutral Point of View) just fine, but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. There is no case given here for deletion. ''&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VALID||WP:N||WP:MNA||WP:RNPOV)