Deletion of Steven L. Tuck

Comment: I disagree that the Archaeological Institute of America|AIA award isn't prestigious enough. It's a national award, from a notable academic society, given to a single recipient each year; that's enough for #C2. Regardless, Tuck's textbook ''A History of Roman Art'' has been reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources http://www.caareviews.org/reviews/3554https://cj.camws.org/sites/default/files/reviews/2017.04.03%20Fischer%20on%20Tuck.docx.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X1600305X, meeting , and according to https://muse.jhu.edu/article/639694 this article in ''Classical World'' is widely used in teaching Roman art history, meeting #C4. Giving Rhodes' https://catalog.rhodes.edu/matters-record/college-sponsored-lecture-series James F. Ruffin Lecture also indicates significant impact per #C1. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Skimpy for . Holds a chair, along with the national award (See:  #1), which is a requirement for  (#2 and #5). However, the actual criteria for inclusion is |significant coverage in |reliable and |independent sources, which is severely lacking certainly for a |BLP, and I don't think any specific criteria over-rides this. Good stories though. One book, one award, and |self published material needs more sourcing. This is where Wikipedia:NEXIST would be a good argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:ANYBIO||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:SELF||WP:independent)

Comment: I do still stand by my nomination.  explicitly admits that it "sets the bar fairly low", so, given that Tuck does not pass it (I do not think he meets any of the eight criteria), I can only conclude that he is not notable enough. I think we can all agree he is an edge case, though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)