Deletion of Rich Zubaty

Comment: What specific part of the |notability criteria does he meet?  What |reliable, independent sources confirm that information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: could not find any |reliable source to establish |notability.--Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: What specific part of the |notability criteria does he meet?  What |reliable, independent sources confirm that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: It is clear that supporters of Zubaty have been discussing the proposed deletion among themselves, and encouraging fellow supporters to weigh in.  This would not necessarily be a problem, but the vast majority of those supporters either do not understand the |notability criteria, or do not understand the |reliable source guidelines, or have not yet read those rules closely.  I understand that many of you have a serious problem with being told the rules by a woman, so I beg you to read the rules for yourselves- no matter how many supporters say 'do not delete,' they will be ignored if they are not explaining how Zubaty meets Wikipedia's |notability criteria, supporting their answers with legitimate |sources.  I've tried several times to draw people's attention to the rules, and met mainly with personal insults indicating that, because I am a lesbian and a feminist, I must be making the rules up as I go along, to harm Zubaty.  I am both a lesbian and a feminist, but the rules have been in place for years, and I didn't even participate in writing them - they were in place long before I joined Wikipedia.  The rules were written mostly by men, so you can trust that they are good and right.  Please, please, please, read the rules for yourself, and understand them, before making your decision about whether this article can be kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: based on my own research (see above). He's mentioned in a few reliable sources here and there, but only in passing.  It's been proposed that he is a prominent theoretician in his area, but there is no evidence to support this. It's been fifteen years since he self-published the only work which gets even passing mention. Yes, he has fans on internet forums (many of whom can be found on this page), but in all that time no scholar or serious journalist has even bothered to publish a detailed attack him or refute his arguments in detail, let alone consider him a a seminal contributor to the field. It speaks volumes and it cannot be put down to his views. There are plenty of figures out there who are left-wing activists or spectacularly non-pc, or even just plain loony. Nevertheless, coverage of them and their ideas ''in depth'', if only in criticism, can easily be found in ''multiple'' |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELY)