Deletion of Chris Kacher

Comment: Heavily promotional in tone, without |reliable sources independent of the subject that can be used to attest to his notability. This AfD is a mess of apparent sockpuppetry and counteraccusations but I see no policy-based argument for keeping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: My sympathies to the closing admin who has to wade through all of this prolix detail. I think the bottom line is this: The article is basically  of an individual who is clearly ''accomplished'', but not ''notable''. Moreover, much of what's said above vastly overstates the case for notability. There seems to be no assertion on the basis of musical contributions, so let's look at the other 2 possibilities: his work in finance and his work in physics. While I'm not an expert as to the former, one can look at other money/investment managers like Boaz Weinstein, finding that there's been much written ''about'' them in http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/boaz_weinstein_proves_failure.html mainstream sources. I don't think we really see that here. Kacher asserts above that "I have been on mainstream news media", but it seems that much of what he's referring to are things ''he'' has written, like http://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-stocks-to-carry-you-through-the-slump-2010-09-01 this. These strike me as routine pieces and my sense is that he's not a notable figure in the financial world. Of course, I'll be glad to defer to those more expert in the field. As to his physics, I can comment with much more certainty that his impact is not notable. An easy WoS check shows an h-index of 10 for CD Kacher (being careful to remove false-positives from CM Kacher, who has a very highly cited paper in Biophys. J.). While this value ''is'' borderline, it is informative to look at Kacher's place within the most highly cited articles. All of this work appears to have been done while he was a grad student, or shortly thereafter, and all have fairly large author lists with Kacher being mostly in the middle. For example, here's the author list of the most highly-cited one (42 WoS citations): Kadkhodayan B, Turler A, Gregorich KE, Baisden PA, Czerwinski KR, Eichler B, Gaggeler HW, Hamilton TM, Jost DT, '''Kacher CD''', Kovacs A, Kreek SA, Lane MR, Mohar MF, Neu MP, Stoyer NJ, Sylwester ER, Lee DM, Nurmia MJ, Seaborg GT, Hoffman DC (emphasis mine), with the first author being also the corresponding author. Therefore, while statements in the article like "Kacher helped to make the first atom of element 110" may be technically correct, they falsely imply a much more prominent role than what Kacher appears to have played. As for the http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/coryell.htm Coryell Award, this is a recognition at the undergrad level and doesn't go to notability. Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION)

Comment: Inadequate sources not to mention oodles of . C. D. Kacher has a GS h index of 9: not enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Wow, Chris Kacher commented on his own article's afd, which is clearly . Anyway I agree with Agricola44, the person "is accomplished but not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)