Deletion of Richard Cytowic

Comment: Although the article clearly has COI issues, I would argue that the subject is notable. He is the author of several books published by the MIT Press on synesthesia.  As both his self-written bio article and the synesthesia article that I have substantially contributed to state, he played a critical role in helping to bring this neurological phenomenon back to popular awareness, and is widely recognized as one of the leaders in the field.  Thus, the subject of the article satisfies otability (academics) "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  As for the Pulitzer nomination, if you check carefully, the website only lists finalists and winners, not all nominees.  Thus, the failure to find the nomination listed on the website does not mean that he has falsified the fact that he was nominated; it merely means that he was not a finalist or winner, which is not claimed.  On the other hand, the article is still available online if you log in to the New York Times website here http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/27/magazine/the-long-ordeal-of-james-brady.html?&pagewanted=1.  It is a major, nine page article, in a major newspaper magazine.  In all, multiple books published by reputable publishing house (MIT Press), a generally acknowledged foundational role in a scientific field, and other such things are all notable.  The COI issues should be dealt with separately. At a more general level, this is bad practice.  First, the editor was blocked for suspected sock-puppetry without any time for discussion, and then his bio article, to which he has been the main contributor, is nominated for deletion when he cannot even respond to the nom since he has an indef. block
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)