Deletion of Craig Larman

Comment: Yikes, I did a quick Google Scholar on "Craig Larman" http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22craig+larman%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C22&as_sdtp= and his first single-authored book is cited by 2352.  Easily meets  -- which does not require coverage ''of the individual'', but cites / discussions / uses ''of their work''.  That's what the the first test means: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and if you look at all the other tests you will see that this is a common thread.  We don't look for mainstream or secondary resources covering the individual -- that's quite rare, since it's much more important that consumers of media receive adequate information about footballers, entertainers, celebrities and occasionally politicians if sufficiently scandalous.  The gist of  is that scientists and academics are notable through their research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Seems to easily meet  #1 (maybe #4 and/or #7 also). Just from "Scholar" links in the AFD Nom, his book Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition), for example, is listed as cited 75 times by other published academic works. Of the 7 books cited in the article, 6 of them are in the Library of Congress Catalog http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=craig+larman&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=100
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: per . See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bas Vodde|related discussion. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPDELETE)

Comment: I guess the basis of my argument is in the following passage from : "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." My interpretation is that primary sources are enough, so long as they adequately establish that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" per . I believe both apply here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR)