Deletion of Timothy Ball

Comment: Should we require enough notability to write a decent, rounded biography, or at least a decent stub? Ball is known for nothing but his climate change contrariness. Hence any article is bound to be unbalanced and a target for s
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Clear pass of  criterion 7 and . http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Timothy+Ball%22+climate+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a Gnews link (I inserted an additional climate term to sort out from all the other Tim Balls out there) puts him at the forefront of the political discussion over climate science
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: meets  as well as  and , h-index and g-index are not widely accepted as reliable indicators of notability. Coverage in reliable, secondary sources http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html here, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/uselections2008.sarahpalin1 here, http://www.nysun.com/new-york/ceo-with-a-spine/51681/ here, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3116696/US-election-Sarah-Palin-used-oil-industry-scientists-in-case-against-polar-bears.html here, http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=257909&party=rep here http://multi-science.metapress.com/index/A616R5VN38611177.pdf here; publications http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1476945X08000202 here, http://multi-science.metapress.com/index/6244G1W819660H1Q.pdf here, http://multi-science.metapress.com/index/Y3K1241725245438.pdf here, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1476945X07000219 here ,etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: Folk don't have to meet all of those notability criteria; just one of them :-) and I think that Ball does just scrape by on criterion 7 - there's several links to lay media that take his arguments seriously and I'm sure a few more could be unearthed if necessary. I think he easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: fails . No evidence of high impact scholarly work (criterion #1); no evidence of highly prestigious awards (criterion #2); not an elected member of the National Academy, Royal Society or similar body (criterion #3); no evidence that his work as made "significant impact in the area of higher education" (criterion #4); not a "distinguished professor" or holder of a named chair (criterion #5); not been a university president, chancellor or held a similar position (criterion #6); has arguably made a small, but not a "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (criterion #7); does not appear to have been editor in chief of a major journal (criterion #8); isn't in literature or fine arts (criterion #9).He objectively fails 8 of the 9 criteria and, in my opinion, fails criterion #7. Even if he squeaks past on that criterion,  sets a minimum standard for inclusion. There's very little coverage of his actual academic achievements which would be, of course, be the underlying basis for any notability under criterion #7
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)