Deletion of Mokenge P. Malafa (2nd nomination)

Comment: Looks like it doesnt quite fit  but I've seen less-notable professors with articles avoid deletion citing that same policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: While there are many articles and institutions investigating the role of Vitamin E in cancer prevention, each group investigates specific aspects of this problem: rectal cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, etc. A quick look at the articles which cite the subject's research will show that only ''he'' has conducted research on whether α-TOS can prevent ''melanoma'', for example. Also, the fact that the subject's research is routinely cited, even when the article is dealing with a ''different'' application of Vitamin E than the subject deals with, demonstrates, in accordance with , the subjects' broad attribution as a pioneer in this area of research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I find this argument disingenuous. The nominator clearly called out the article as potentially failing  in the original nomination. This is a completely valid deletion rationale, and the fact that he worded it as a question rather than a clear statement should not be a reason for keeping
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: In his specialty, the use of Vitamin E for cancer prevention/amelioration: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Vitamin+E%22+cancer Google scholar found citation counts of 1552, 960, 674, 651, 541, etc. I conclude from this that this is a high-citation area and that his own citation counts, 123, 105, etc (while nothing to sneeze at) are not enough to make a convincing case for #C1. What else is there? Chair of a department is clearly not a high enough level administrative position for , and the awards listed in the article are certainly too low-level to count for much. And I also agree with the promotional language and conflict-of-interest concerns raised by DGG. If he were more clearly notable, I'd suggest stubbing it down to something neutral and better-sourced, but in this case because of the borderline notability and COI issues I think  is a better choice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:TNT)

Comment: Does not pass the admittedly high criteria for , and of course not even close to . He appears to be a successful but run-of-the-mill surgical oncologist. His citations at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Mokenge+P.+Malafa&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar are OK but nothing to indicate he is a thought leader in his field has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline; his positions held are not remarkable; and the awards listed are trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: As with Cullen328's comment earlier, this "keep" comment fails to address the deletion rationale (i.e., whether the subject passes ), nor does it provide any other policy-based reason for keeping other than the failure to understand the clearly-worded and policy-based rationale for the previous discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: You may consider my remark disingenuous, {{U|David Eppstein}} and I get your point. But I believe that (except in the case of procedural noms on behalf of IP editors or newbies), a nomination should clearly state that the nominator has concluded the article should be deleted, and why. A nomination shouldn't implicitly ask other editors to do the groundwork described in , and as {{U|DGG}} has so graciously done here. That's my view of the matter, and I'm not trying to be difficult
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)