Deletion of David Pearce (philosopher) (3rd nomination)

Comment: There seems to be agreement here that Pearce does not meet  (whether or not that guideline is applicable is not relevant), the question therefore is whether there are enough sources to pass  directly. Like flyingkiwiguy, I don't really see the necessary coverage for that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: improve the sourcing. Doesn't appear to pass  as his "science" doesn't meet the criteria, but passes GNG with significant coverage in the media. Moreover, he has been a subject of multiple third party analysis, so the article should stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: I can't see sufficient evidence of notability. He fails  and . The only source that helps establish notability is the Dazed & Confused story, which isn't hugely detailed but has some info.http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/dazed-confused2.html The link to German Vanity Fair is purely an interview, so it doesn't count as a secondary source. Ditto the io9 interview (io9 editorial is reliable but not interviews). Other coverage seems to be from very obscure transhumanist publications. As to other notability guidelines, there are no notable books by this person; he's not employed by any academic institution or recipient of anything (awards, fellowships, state honors, etc) to show his significance. So we'd need either more press/media coverage about him (i.e. not interviews) in multiple sources, or credible, referenced statements about his importance as a philosopher. He seems to be someone with mildly interesting ideas who's got a small amount of press coverage but who doesn't quite meet our notability requirements, so I wouldn't be opposed to merging or mentioning him in articles on relevant topics if there are suitable articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BASIC)

Comment: I wrote quite a bit of this article at one point but have not monitored it, and therefore I believe the problem is the watering down and vandalization/blanking/removal of information that was once in the article rather than a lack of notability of its subject (who clearly qualifies by ) - for example, I just did a search for his book in Google Books and found close to 500 citations of it in other books. That would take me hours to sift through if I were to try to add information from them to this article. Anyone commenting on here is free to do so themselves, but they cannot honestly make the argument that he is not notable. I added some information to the article to make that clearer. He does, however, have a lot of people who for whatever reason get riled up by his ideas and don't want anyone to hear them - the recent article history even includes death threats to Pearce. Nonetheless, Pearce has ideas that have been featured in books and articles by numerous third-party sources, and "The Hedonistic Imperative" is on college syllabi. Very clear keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: easily passes  with the media attention he has received
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)