Deletion of Broda Otto Barnes

Comment: Wow. What an incredibly looooooong discussion. I see it boiling down to this: Notability IS notability, and we are not here to decide if its quackery {which could even then be notable). In this case we have a well-written, encyclopedic and well-sourced BLP about an individual who was a noted author and who was in numerous peer reviewed journals. Even if his views are not well-received currently, they were in the 30s, and |Notability is not temporary. Also, I am quite concerned with the deconstruction done by an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.124.200.138 anonymous SPA immediately before the nomination, leaving nothing but a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=next&oldid=286436514 stub. Doesn't seem quite cricket, and feels like the SPA was Cold deck|stacking the deck
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Definitely does not qualify under  unless citation indices for old articles are even less complete than I think they are. The library holdings bring me close, but without reliable sources describing Barnes or the work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: appears to fail  from available evidence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)