Deletion of Steven Mithen

Comment: I know nothing about the aforementioned edit wars, but this person doesn't seem to pass the  test
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I'm not voting here because on principle I don't like the idea of judging entry contents based on the behavior of editors.  However, the creation of this entry was disruptive and the existence of entries like it, when created under these circumstances will only continue to cause problems for Wikipedia.  We don't want to establish a precedent for editors to create entries  in order to buttress a |point.  Likewise, entries like this one might get the axe because of the disruptive behavior that begot them without being judged fairly by those who could actually determine the notability of the subject.  I sure can't in this instance.  I wonder if the proper route here is not to delete the entry but to look into the disruptive pattern of editing from whence it came
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Whether the article was created to "buttress a point or not" that offers no rationale for deletion. (Buttressing substantive points is what we do, by providing sourcing and context.  refers to disruptive activity.) The individual seems notable whether or not his positions are considered mainstream: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/844 A dialog in the New York Review of Books is a very high indicator of notability to me. Additionally there are reviews http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/42352;jsessionid=baa8H7Lk1frYD_ in American Scientist and http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/mithen.html Edge Magazine all on the first page of google results. There doesn't seem to be any real question of notability. Please handle your issues in the other article through |standard procedures
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:DR)