Deletion of Eric Roux

Comment: I have struck my delete vote above. The article from ''Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses'' is a better reference (I have access through my university library). It's author is a leading researcher on Scientology with a prominent book publication on the religion by Oxford University Press. Roux is the center of a case study in the article. That in conjunction with the other media sources just provided by Le luxembourgeois just barely squeaks by . I was initially inclined to change to weak delete but in reality that opinion would be  out of my own bias. The coverage does in the end meet the standard of GNG. {{ping|Le luxembourgeois}} I strongly urge you to strike your double vote and not repeat yourself in AFDs. Such behavior often causes other reviewers to vote against you rather than for you because it is considered bad etiquette. It only weakens your argument. You may add new evidence to discussions with the word "comment". The added evidence did persuade me to change my vote. This is the best way to conduct yourself in AFDs. Let the evidence speak for itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Per 4meter4, fails , there's just not enough sourcing to do justice to a bio.    Additionally, CESNUR is usually not a RS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)