Deletion of John Francis Reuel Tolkien

Comment: The article is neutral and well-referenced. BLP does not apply. So far as  is concerned, the issue meets the standard of "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role"; and "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" is satisfied in large part because he is his father's son, as Herostratus notes, above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: Covered in a Tolkien context - e.g https://books.google.co.il/books?id=9s7ab4nKIMMC&pg=PA666&dq=%22John+Francis+Reuel+Tolkien%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpiryU7qPfAhVIqaQKHS4hBmYQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=%22John%20Francis%20Reuel%20Tolkien%22&f=false (and several others). Also very widely covered in a crime context over several years on a national level - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/3082071.stmhttps://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/book-review-betrayed-english-catholic-church-and-sex-abuse-crisishttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/13/englands-senior-catholic-cleric-apologises-withholding-evidence/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/13/cardinal-vincent-nichols-denies-claims-he-covered-up-abuse-allegation-against-tolkien-sonhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-46555436. Lack of conviction moot given he's not a BLP.  and  clearly met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:GNG)

Comment: Unfortunately, meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NCRIME)

Comment: I suspect that if he were not the eldest son of the author, there would be less interest in this particular priest's problems, but we have a conflagration of streams and the subject's notability is clear and the article meets  as it is currently written. If content must be removed from the original, so be it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:GNG)