Deletion of George Finlayson

Comment: I have a low tolerance for attempts to knock serious material out of the encyclopedia on sourcing grounds. If there is insufficient sourcing showing on an article about an early 19th Century Scottish naturalist, then ''tag it for more sources!!!'' Yet again and again we see people dragging serious work to the slaughterhouse because it doesn't measure to some guideline delivered from a burning bush to Moses 5000 years ago... Sheesh. Terrible nomination. He's listed in the http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/9/101009468/ OXFORD DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. Maybe that's a clue? Here's an http://books.google.com/books?id=8MscAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=George+Finlayson+naturalist&source=bl&ots=HlPeXkNmRf&sig=49D3qiO7U_Sp0Z2LI1yK5U3-7aY&hl=en&ei=7FLTTb7BN5DWiAL0tLmiBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=George%20Finlayson%20naturalist&f=false 1889 DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. Shit, nominator, for the love of Sweet Baby Jesus: . I am out of here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Is having a bird named after you enough to pass the  test? I suppose that could be considered to pass the first criterion; he certainly doesn't pass 2 through 9. I looked at one of the book review references and the reviewer spends most of his time recounting how Finlayson doesn't like Orientals; I suppose race science is science, of a kind
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: on basis of arguments above. Nominator is advised to carry out efore more thoroughly before making further nominations in this area
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)