Deletion of William A. Tiller (2nd nomination)

Comment: It's crucial to remind ourselves that the analysis on Tiller's notability is grounded in what WP's established policy's are, specifically in this case . Tiller ''conclusively'' passes at least 2 of 's tests, #1: his WoS h-index is 28 (~2900 total citations), which is far and away above the usual h-index of around 15 or total citations of a few hundred, and #3: http://php.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/list.php AAAS Fellow, the AAAS being the world's largest general scientific society. You may have arguments for/against some of his other activities, but it matters not whether he is notable for those because he separately passes PROF and that alone is sufficient for this article to exist. If there are concerns about sources to flesh-out the article, then leave it stubbed for now. In other words, the article's content may be debatable, but it's existence is not. This discussion will certainly end in a "keep" and I hope it is not seen here at AfD again. Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: In Google scholar 7 papers with over 100 cites, h-index of 24 passes rof#1. In view of its history this looks to me like a bad-faith nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: I hope you'll forgive me for bringing this up again" - well, no, sorry, but I won't. Such a rapid renomination after your first AfD produced an outcome that you didn't like is both pointy and disruptive. If you believe the first AfD was improperly closed or the closer did not take all arguments into account then you should take it to . If everyone whose nomination resulted in a "keep" decision behaved like you have, then AfD would be a farce
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: There do not appear to be any |notable, |reliable sources which we can use. He certainly did publish a lot of papers back when he was a professor but there are no sources that indicate his work was considered important by his peers. Other than his appearance in What the Bleep, there's very little for me to justify keeping the article. Now that the article has been tidied up I am convinced that it's never going to be more than a low-importance stub
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)