Deletion of Dean Lomax

Comment: The subject's work has been amply recognized as evidenced by the cited reliable sources. The article could be improved on but the subject backed up by citations easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: GS h-index of 8 is far too small to satisfy rof#C1: oo soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: Article actually DOES make a good shot at showing notablity (There are BBC references, daily mail and everythingdinosaur.co.uk which should be plenty), and even if it didn't, we judge the article by doing a  search. If the article is possibly notable, or is notable, which I believe it is; then I don't believe this search was done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Fails . Species are indeed notable, but naming a species doesn't make the person notable. The news articles are all primarily about the discoveries, not the discoverer. Giving lectures doesn't satisfy . Also in terms of prof, their publication history https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55352139700 doesn't pass the average professor test. That the subject has had ''local'' museum exhibit based on himhttps://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-to-celebrate-the-work-of-scientist-dean-lomax-with-exhibition-and-fun-day-1-8733460 shows he might cross the threshold someday, but nothing quite satisfying PROF yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:PROF)

Comment: The sourcing is problematic. So far I havent seen one high quality source. They tend to be about his discoveries, instead of him. There is not single decent  source, that I put a finger on, and say yip, it is absolutely encyclopaedic, he is notable and is worth an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: This is not "well sourced" towards |notability. It is sourced but a problem per above comments is that the sources that are not  are more about the discoveries than the subject. Reference to |other articles, as a show of reasoning to keep, is often misguided. Darren Naish has a PhD, Matt J. Wedel is an associate professor, and Mike P. Taylor a PhD, so there are some apple and oranges comparisons going on. This is currently a terrible |pseudo  needing biographical content like a birthday, family, education, etc... but this has become acceptable even on a BLP. He is an https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-to-celebrate-the-work-of-scientist-dean-lomax-with-exhibition-and-fun-day-1-8733460 honory scientist and has co-authored books, including https://books.google.com/books?id=piwntAEACAAJ&dq=Books+by+Dean+R+Lomax&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW0f2p6f_aAhURbq0KHeReDEYQ6AEIKTAA ''The Bone Wars'' and https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2014/08/03/dinosaurs-of-the-british-isles-book-review.html ''Dinosaurs of the British Isles''. He also appears to be well https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C19&q=%22Dean+R+Lomax%22&btnG= published in peer-reviewed papers and in scientific journals so appears to pass  and the professor test. He has self-professed to having a "MPhil in palaeontology" working towards a PhD. A sad state of an article does not diminish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHER||WP:PSEUDO||WP:BLP||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:notability||WP:primary)

Comment: Nearly all of the sources in the article appear to be about the discoveries, not about the scientist himself. Of the sources that are about him directly, https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2017/05/12/popular-palaeontologist-to-present-at-prestigious-science-festival.html the everythingdinosaur.co.uk article appears to be a blog (though happy to be convinced otherwise, I'm no dino expert), the http://www.rosiewinterton.co.uk/news/westminster/news.aspx?p=1021638 Rosie Winterton ref appears to be a press release from the local MP's office, and doesn't address the topic in any substantial way, and https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-to-celebrate-the-work-of-scientist-dean-lomax-with-exhibition-and-fun-day-1-8733460 the Doncaster free press article also appears to be a short local news article about an upcoming talk by the subject. Clearly the subject is the topic of some buzz, especially in the local press. However, I don't think the bar of "significant coverage" (i.e. addressing the topic "|directly and in detail") has been met. This is often a hurdle for academics, who are rarely the topic of secondary sources. For this reason, we have  which provides other ways to tell if an academic is notable. This bar also doesn't appear to be met (according to SCOPUS, top work is cited 11 times). Perhaps someday this scientist will meet the notability criteria here, but I think now it's just |too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:TOOSOON)