Deletion of David Ayoub

Comment: per TenOfAllTrades, DGG. Current level of sourcing fails both  and . There's been a note somewhere that he's received a Stegner Fellowship; if that can be sourced, then perhaps it would meet the  bar as receiving a notable award.My mistake - I misread the canvassing taking place http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Running&oldid=149607044#Notices here. Currently his publication record and academic position argue against PROF notability, and the lack of substantial independent secondary-source coverage argues against  notability. ''Even if kept'', the article requires a near-complete rewrite, as it is currently a poorly sourced, POV 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: it's not a |coatrack - he's primarily noteworthy due to his anti-vaccination views.  As far as Kristjan Wager's comment "most of the content is unsourced" it's one of the most heavily-referenced short articles I've seen in a while, and I managed to fix 3 of the fact tags with a few minutes of Google-searching.  As a recent parent, I've had several people who hold anti-vaccination views quote him at me to tell me that I shouldn't have my kids vaccinated.  Comment redacted, per .  As far as Bigdaddy1981's "vanity soapbox" comment, if it were one, there wouldn't be a criticism section
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT||WP:BLP)