Deletion of Charles W. Johnson (philosopher)

Comment: Seems to fall far short of , and we still don't have any third party sources that would attest to notability and allow a pass on  instead
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: The "offending" edits by {{user|Radgeek}} amount to 3 factual corrections (birthdate, place of residence, url of blog). Hardly  stuff
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: inadequately published/cited/quoted to meet  which seems the relevant standard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as a scholar who has been cited and quoted by notable people in notable venues. Radgeek's edits are minor and he didn't create the article. There is no reason to suspect that his edits were the type that  seeks to avoid. This is not a vanity article, and it really isn't a controversial one either. As I pointed out on the article talk page, http://www.mises.org/story/2374 here, Long quotes Johnson at length in a lecture he delivered at a Mises Institute conference. Walter Block cites a Long & Johnson article http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: falls short of . Article has been edited by {{user|Radgeek}}, who admits to a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COI)