Deletion of Temple Hauptfleisch

Comment: The subject does appear to pass , and so we should have an article on him. This, however, is not it, and is frankly so unusable that my recommendation would be to delete it entirely and create a new article from the ground up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR)

Comment: Fails , , , and probably anything else you want to name.  The article itself is an example of how ''not'' to write an article--just a long mishmash of unsourced  and probably  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BK||WP:GNG||WP:RESUME||WP:AUTO)

Comment: In an attempt to calibrate the citation numbers, I searched for articles on South African Theatre rather than searching for Hauptfleisch's name (he has articles with citation counts 46, 27, and then smaller numbers, not really convincing of #C1 by itself. I found a few other authors with bigger impact: Coplan & Wright '85 (472 citations), Kavanagh '85 (128 citations), Kruger '99 (78 citations). But Hauptfleisch's papers were still in the mix, so I think it's fair to call him a leading expert on the subject. Is that enough? I'm not sure. But re Green Cardamom's comment: he clearly does not pass #5 or #7, and the case for #8 is dubious. (Is this a major journal?) #5 is for endowed chairs (that is, "The So-and-so Professor of X"), not department chairs, and #7 is for heads of universities, not heads of centres. So I think the only hope is #1
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The article is terrible and probably an   but I think it might pass  on possibly four points
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:RESUME||WP:SCHOLAR)

Comment: and clean up. Seems to me to satisfy  on several grounds, as stated above. The quality of the article, advanced as an argument by all ''delete'' votes so far, is irrelevant, and the bald and false assertion that it fails ''probably anything else you want to name'' is most unimpressive. (The information in the article is actually not too bad, but agree the article is terrible for other reasons
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR)