Deletion of David Conway (academic)

Comment: The text of the Wikipedia article does not explain why this academic is noteworthy. It's just a short summary of where he lived and the jobs that he has held, none of which alone is sufficient for . If the consensus turns out to be that his written works are sufficiently noteworthy, I think that it is necessary to explain why they are noteworthy in the body of the article. The article doesn't even say what David Conway studies beyond "theology" and "philosophy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: both of the above 'keep' proposals rely on  - they do not disagree with a failure under . I point out that the criteria under  do not relate to number of books, or the quality of their publishers: they are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: So already in the article are book reviews in ''Review of Austrian Economics'', ''Philosophy'' (two), ''American Political Science Review'', ''Nations and Nationalism'', and ''Journal of Libertarian Studies''. Also found reviews in ''http://hrcak.srce.hr/132717?lang=en Life and School: Journal for the Theory and Practice of Education'', a write-up in ''http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6927322/National-curriculum-being-dumbed-down.html The Telegraph'', an article by Mark Skousen in ''The Freeman, 48''  doesn't cover him much but says "More recently, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx (Penguin Books, 1987) has received high praise for his deft criticisms," which indicates there's more to find, he's featured prominently in http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/5011/Immigrants-ruining-British-way-of-life this ''Express'' article, etc. Probably closer to weak keep than keep, but ultimately, it looks like there's enough to satisfy . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)