Deletion of Robert E. W. Hancock

Comment: Obvious pass of #C1 (14 publications with over 1000 citations each; over 100 would already be good enough), multiple pass of #C2 (OBC, Prix Galien, Michael Smith Prize, and McLaughlin Medal among others), multiple pass of #C3 (FRSC, Fellow IDSA, Fellow AAM, Fellow CAHS), likely multiple pass of #C5 (Canada Research Chair and Killam Professorship). Any one of these by itself would be good enough. Speedy because the nominator doesn't appear to have even attempted to consider our academic notability guidelines, instead basing the nomination on sourcing (GNG, the wrong notability criterion for academics) and doing even that part wrong ( requires searching for outside sources, not merely evaluating the sources present in the article, and many of the sources already present in the article are independent of the subject and his employer). There is some promotional language in the article but not so much as to make it worthy of deletion; 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BEFORE||WP:DINC)

Comment: Obvious pass of multiple  criteria, as argued above. And after even a quick editing pass, the tone is less glurgy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Per above, passes notability and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: as per above. Given it's ing, perhaps
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: clearly a failure of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)