Deletion of H. Lee Cheek, Jr.

Comment: The article doesn't present any strong evidence of passing . His many books would give one plausible avenue for notability, but that needs evidence that they've made an impact. His administrative positions are not high enough for #C6. And the election to the Academy of Philosophy and Letters hints at #C3, but it's a new organization founded in 2007 with no secondary sources and it's unclear to me how large and significant it is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: This is a strange AFD, I have to say. It is not often that one sees an AFD proposed by an editor with just 19 edits and then several other "newbies" and anonymous IPs chipping in, but not as so often happens to !vote "keep, he's important!", but voting both ways. Although I am very willing to |assume good faith, this makes me think that more is going on than is perhaps in the open. Nevertheless, like David Eppstein, I cannot find enough sources to support notability of this person. He's ''not'' listed in Web of Science and the number of citations in even Google Scholar is very low. I agree with PolySciJoe (15 edits...) that having published in a journal (or not, as the case may be) is not really very important (what counts is whether these publications have made any measurable impact). As it stands, I don't see any evidence that this meets WP:PROF
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Appears to meet ; whether other "more worthy" subjects have articles or not |is irrelevant. Yes, there are problems: for example, the article appears to have been largely written by the subject which is discouraged, but these are clean-up issues - not cases for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:WAX)