Deletion of Craig Call Black

Comment: Having an obituary in a publication of a professional organization is usually a clue that the academic is notable. The ftp site for that document was dead because the material had been moved, and the correct link is now in the article. According to the obit Black was elected a fellow of the Geological Society of America, meeting criteria #3 of . Finding published sources for influential curators and educators is difficult. Usually we have to rely on awards and elected society fellowships
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: I'm by no means a subject matter expert on this topic, but the article seems to be well-sourced with material that passes the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: changed from above): I cringe sometimes when I see that AFD is not clean up. An argument that we should have articles written from obituaries (or accept them as clues because finding sources are difficult) is not likely one of the better ones I have seen for notability. That is why there is a sourcing requirements and not automatic or inherent notability. The searches I performed was on information I saw (or couldn't see because of a dead link) and was flawed. The sources added allow others to verify information and I was able to also find an author, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c85d/1d74b3d6d9493bf0e3570c5c490b5324636a.pdf William W. Korth, that referred to the subject (for example, see Black, 1965) more than once. What is shown now is far better than what looked like a |memorial article written primarily from obituaries. To me the article surpasses "clues" of notability or "seems to satisfy..." comments and if
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOBITUARY)