Deletion of Emil Kirkegaard (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails  and there is little biographical substance in the article: he released some data that he scraped from the web, he founded a journal and he participated in a conference. I dont see enough for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:THREE)

Comment: Clearly fails . Known among a subset of the WP community for POV-pushing on and off Wiki but not at all notable to the world at large
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or redirect to OpenPsych - {{ec}} Kirkegaard is part of a prolific fringe group, so a superficial search or glance at Google hit counts may give false results. Sources which appear superficially reliable should be scrutinized very carefully. This group has issues with alled gardens, s, etc. It's not enough to count sources and then !vote, we need to make sure these sources are reliable in context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: and possibly redirect to OpenPsych (that would satisfy "people who may be searching for him at any given time").  The mentioned Forbes article for instance is a contributor's and is really about an event (), it's similar with the Wired article.  Most other sources are also about topics like eugenism, conference controversies and OpenPsych, more than about the person
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1EVENT)

Comment: contrary to Lute Currie's assertion, there are https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Emil+Kirkegaard%22+-wikipedia+-facebook+-twitter+-reddit+-linkedin+-pinterest&ei=KJynYNLmNIu5gwes3pbgDg&start=70&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjSmrq02NrwAhWL3OAKHSyvBew4WhDy0wN6BAgBEEQ&biw=988&bih=912 fewer than 90 possible sources out there, and almost nothing in the way of reliable secondary sources () providing substantial discussion of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)