Deletion of Mark Siegler

Comment: Not a great article yet, perhaps, but the subject is clearly a notable academic, as pointed out above.  |Let it grow, let it grow, let it grow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The NY Times article goes into a reasonable amount of detail about the subject, and whether it is nominally "about him" or a monetary gift that he inspired is unimportant in my opinion. The significant media coverage of him in connection with this gift, combined with a large enough body of work to meet criterion #1 of  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1429&bih=998&q=%22Mark%20Siegler%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=810l1482l0l1737l3l3l0l0l0l0l163l427l0.3l3l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp seals this one for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: with a GS h index of 47 which gives a clear pass of rof#C1. An absurd nomination and a trout for the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: author) - subject is definitely notable with criterion #5 (distinguished professorhttp://www.uchospitals.edu/physicians/mark-siegler.html) of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)