Deletion of Richard C. Duncan

Comment: The first question is probably not whether Duncan is notable, but whether the Olduvai theory is notable; after all this was, as his 2016 ''The Seattle Times'' obituary put it, "his opus." And if the theory is notable, Duncan would presumably be "otability (people)#Creative professionals|known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." As far as the Olduvai theory goes, there's plenty about it: both widely cited https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Olduvai+theory&btnG= articles written by Duncan, and consistent discussion in secondary sources (e.g., https://www.cder.dz/download/Art21-3_12.pdf 1, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-06-24/olduvai-theory-and-catastrophic-consequences/ 2, https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOGEOGJ-1-15 3, https://ortus.rtu.lv/science/en/publications/17839-Why+the+Hydrogen+Energy+is+Necessary+for+Latvia 4, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2015/110200ahlbrandt/ndx_ahlbrandt.pdf.html 5). For what it's worth, there's also a decent amount on Duncan: e.g., https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/seattletimes/obituary.aspx?n=richard-c-duncan&pid=179590824 1, https://books.google.com/books?id=Sf1ZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT92 2, and https://issuu.com/uwalumni/docs/columns_201609/60 3
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)