Deletion of Noah Carl

Comment: per . Seriously, look at the references: three separate instances of  for separate incidents in reliable sources over a year https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cambridge-dons-revolt-over-racist-fellow-s-role-3gfnjrjsh 1 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/10/brexit-supporters-realism-remainers-impressionism-art-study-sociologists 2 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2018/02/it-might-be-pseudo-science-students-take-threat-eugenics-seriously 3. The fact that one of them was front-page news doesn't mean the others don't count - in fact the latest incident in which he was consider notable (the letter) is a result of previous incidents in which he was considered notable (his controversial research activities, speaking at the London conference) and is therefore not actually a single incident ''per se
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I'm sorry that the article creator feels that way, so I feel I should elaborate. Firstly, I don't think it is in dispute that the person in question is an academic, so  applies. The subject of the article fails all 9 possible notability criteria as set out by the article, which isn't surprising given that he is merely a postdoc, and a new one at that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)