Deletion of Michael Scanlan (logic historian)

Comment: in the absence of convincing evidence that he passes any of the criteria of , and in the absence of sources that we can use as the basis of an article. He has written a few articles , one of which ("Who were the American postulate theorists?") has a respectable 60 GS citations, but the rest are in the teens at most. He has done some editorial work, but there is nothing apparent from that that distinguishes him from any other academic. I was hoping that, as a full professor in a branch of the humanities, he had written a few books that we could find in-depth reviews of, giving us properly sourced material about his accomplishments if not about his life, but I couldn't find any — there are many books by authors of the same name but they all appear to be different people than the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: GS h-index of 7 on borderline for philosophy. Noninator should read rof
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Since it was suggested I read rof, I went back and read it again.  I still stand by my deletion rationale as the first bullet point under rof#General notes says: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject."  As I said in my nomination statement there are no reliable, independent sources in the article and in my searches I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources to add to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)