Deletion of Nathan Cofnas

Comment: The argument that Cofnas is a notable academic is very weak. The only evidence given for his notability is two articles he wrote that attracted attention in large part because of their low quality. The first was (according to Steven Pinker) a poorly argued  a partial added later critique of MacDonald, and the second was a defense of fringe views on race. The resignation of the editor of ''Philosophical Psychology'' resulted from a dispute with other editors about whether or not to publish a submission strongly criticizing the journal for publishing Cofnas' low-quality and inflammatory article. So Cofnas was only indirectly involved in that. It is unclear if the resignation of the editor is noteworthy or is just a transient event, but in either case his resignation does not establish Cofnas' {{tq|enduring notability}} per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Doesn't meet . Part of the issue is . The controversy with MacDonald is more of a flash in the pan event, and it's tied more to MacDonald's  for anti-semitism. For the second controversy section, researchers generally don't gain notability for having a paper criticized, and I'm having trouble finding even a good under minimum . I'm finding a lack of general sources about Cofnas we'd normally have for an academic to establish notability too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:INHERIT||WP:NFRINGE||WP:1E)

Comment: Far from meeting , and only independently covered in connection with flashes-in-the-pan. It is very rare that we devote biographies to academics who have essentially written two things, and this does not seem to warrant an exception to that general standard. (We don't base academic notability judgments upon download counts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)