Deletion of Hugh Darwen (2nd nomination)

Comment: He has strong cases both for #C1 for his database work, and  for his bridge puzzle work. There are reliable sources for both of these claims to notability (the Open Eye piece for his database work, and the New York Times for his bridge puzzles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: At AfD#1, maybe you can get away with citing how important he is. However, at AfD#2, you need to start putting up. In particular, you need to make a showing that Hugh Darwen has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject to justify having a stand-alone article on the topic. He may have authored books, but since his actions have not prompted others to write about him, that shows how non-worthy of note he really is. When I look at the article and read the above discussion, it is clear tht the Wikipedia article Hugh Darwen tangentially discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover article by his fans. The abundant keep positions are very  weak and have failed to rebut the strong "lack of sufficient reliable source coverage" argument presented by the delete positions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: seems to be influential/important enough for . Not much biographical information available, although I found one referencehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/open-eye-time-to-honour-a-degree-of-openness-1091735.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)