Deletion of Trevor Marshall (2nd nomination)

Comment: I am not convinced Trevor Marshall is notable, and I am not convinced the Marshall protocol is notable. There is very little information in reliable sources about either. Maybe both are borderline cases, but certainly not more than that. ''If'' Trevor Marshall is borderline notable, then it would be a bad precedent to delete the article merely because a bunch of 'sceptic' editors can't be prevented from filling it with original research and scientific claims sourced to blogs and letters to the editor. I am sure that if this article is deleted, Marshall protocol will be created and we will get the same issues there. The only difference will be that the focus of discussions will shift from  to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Obviously a major ideological stouch here. GS gives an h index of 8, hardly sufficient for rof#C1, but subject seems notable for being controversial for his non-standard views on vitamin D. I think the article should be kept provided that it is made clear that his views are not accepted by mainstream biology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: to Marshal protcol and cull most of the information on Marshall himself.  Much of the issue seems to be people ''asserting'' notability without ''demonstrating'' it.  The coverage in independent sources is ''minimal''.  This is very much a borderline case, one that would be improved if more sources could be located.  For everyone who wishes Trevor Marshall or Marshall protocol to exist, rather than asserting his work is revolutionary it would be helpful to provide |MEDRS citations that ''state'' his work is revolutionizing/ized/izes/ionary vitamin D research
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: Not sure that we should ever give up on an article just because it will be difficult to maintain neutrality, but agree that there is a notability issue with Marshall.  Primae facie, one would expect an article that has been around for more than four years to to state why someone is notable - this one doesn't.  There are very few mainstream sources and academic citations are, in my opinion, too limited to reach the standard of notability required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: The reason Trevor Marshall is notable is exactly what you see happening with the article about him. He has put forth new theories about autoimmune disease and inflammatory disease. Many of these theories are quite different from the mainstream. As such, most people become uncomfortable with them and are tempted to denounce him as a quack. But, in reality, that label doesn't apply. To some extent, his hypotheses, even those about vitamin D, are holding up in at least several arenas. They seem to be holding up with the J. Craig Venter Institute who asked his group to author what they considered to be today's best interpretation of autoimmune disease viewed through the lens of metagenomic research. They hold up with hundreds of mainstream physicians around the globe who are choosing to prescribe his therapy over the standard of care for their chronically ill patients. They hold up with scientific groups in numerous countries who are asking him to give speeches that they do not just give to anyone. For example, he was asked to give the keynote speech at a prestigious international gene conference like DNA Day right after a Nobel laureate. Surely, the scientists who ran this conference do see merit in his work. His hypotheses are holding up with journal editors who have invited him to publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps some of you don't fully appreciate the resistance that people meet in science when putting forth new theories. (See Kuhn.) That Marshall continues to be invited by mainstream sources to speak and publish about his research when those ideas significantly challenge standard thinking is very notable in its own right. Furthermore, while the alleged commenter above may be a sock puppet (quite honestly, I don't know who this is), I think he nails it, so I would like to restate what he said above as it is worth reading, whoever said it, "If having an article on the Marshall Protocol instead of the professor himself is going to be used as an excuse to bring the same content outside the remit of , resulting in a reduced ability to forcibly prevent Orangemarlin from adding his original researchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Marshall&diff=next&oldid=434176420, then I really don't see that as an improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I don't think this subject meets our site's notability criteria, as expressed |here and |here. In particular, there is scant evidence of coverage by intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources. Incidentally, this article is a good example of why such sources are essential - it's impossible to write a policy-compliant encyclopedia article without them, and in their absence all sorts of silliness leap in to fill the void
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: I was going to say that this was probably notable per Criteria 7 of ; however, after reading the notes to criteria 7, I clearly see that he falls short.  In addition, I was going to cite the example that he is a board member of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, but notes for criteria 3 clearly shows that he falls short of that as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The article (even including the now-deleted cancer/vitamin |fringery) presents no evidence of passing  nor any |reliable sources that could be used to pass . He has been mentioned in a Washington Post article about vitamin D but only in a trivial way, nothing that can be used to support an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:PROF||WP:RS||WP:GNG)