Deletion of Dr Paul Knapman

Comment: Probable '''delete''' but I'm torn on this one. As noted by Nominator, there are a lot of news hits that are simply quoting him about a case; that does not amount to "significant coverage". Then there are his publications at Google Scholar, probably not enough or heavily enough cited to qualify him under . On the other hand (and Nominator noted this too), he himself has been the subject of some news coverage of a negative type, for example a http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1238152.stm BBC article about a case where he was criticized for unnecessarily removing the hands of victims of a disaster, and criticism in the http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021023/debtext/21023-33.htm House of Commons for that and other actions including a suggestion that he be fired. These are significant issues, but I feel that the BBC report may be a case of  and the Parliamentary commentary is not a eliable Source in the usual sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:R)