Deletion of Etzel Cardeña

Comment: per #C5. Per WP:GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per #C5 (named chair at a major university), #C8 (editor in chief of a notable journal) http://www.rhine.org/resources/journal-of-parapsychology/journal-of-parapsychology-current-issue/313-editors-and-editorial-review-board.html, and #C1 (16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar). Making fun of someone's research specialty is not an adequate reason for deletion, and neither is using the wrong notability criterion (this is a case for PROF, not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Full transparency: I wrote the PROD rationale which David Gerard quotes above. The PROD was removed with the comment that "article makes a clear claim of notability through multiple  criteria; prodder appears to be using the wrong notability guideline for this subject".https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etzel_Carde%C3%B1a&curid=21607395&diff=857704692&oldid=857661076 Of the  criteria, I believe the remover must be referring to number 5, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment ... at a major institution of higher education and research". I say that because I can't see any other  criterion that Cadeña remotely meets. It is claimed in the article that Cadeña is "the Thorsen Professor of Psychology at Lund University"; so, he holds or held a named chair appointment. Lund University is certainly a major institution of higher education and research, but there is something unusual about the Thorsen chair of psychology. The only mentions of it that Google finds are closely together with Cardeña, in contexts where Cardeña himself has listed his credentials, with one exception: an interesting article from 2015 titled "A decade in the borderland of science", just one and unfortunately in Swedish, in ''Sydsvenskan'', a respectable daily. Apparently the Danish industrialist Poul Thorsen had difficulty in persuading any major university to take his money and create a chair in parapsychology: both Copenhagen and Stockholm declined. I quote an exerpt from the ''Sydsvenskan'' article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: no notable Ghits, fails . Since this is a BLP, the fact it has no sources also is a reason for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO)

Comment: No evidence of RS that demonstrates notability for a large amount of the content in the article, though some of it is mentioned in some fringe publications. However, the individual themselves is apparently notable even though the article does requires further citation. {{yo|David Eppstein}} To be clear I don't support the concept of " an editor has prove reliable sources don't exist before removing currently unsourced content" per . Proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task, insead it is standard practice to remove unsourced content until such a time as RS can be (and has been) provided in text; an admin should know that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREMOVE)

Comment: per David Eppstein and Julle, though I'm not sure if Eppstein is right about Cardena passing #C8, given that the ''Journal of Parapsychology'' seems to be considered a fringe publication in most of academia. But this is irrelevant considering the reliable sources noted by Julle, the high citation counts and endowed chair noted by Eppstein, and his status as a fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, https://lareviewofbooks.org/author-page/etzel-cardena/ all of which allow him to pass  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)