Deletion of James Heilman

Comment: I believe that sources in our article in major publications centered around his activities on Wikipedia on at least three different occasions (the Readers Digest "Is Google Making Us Sick" story, the stories in several sources about the Rorschach test and subsequent complaints against the subject, and the NYT story about a plagiarism incident discovered by the subject) are enough for . If we think he's doing this in his capacity as an academic then he also passes #C7, or alternatively if he's doing this as a hobby then it doesn't matter whether he also passes : being an academic doesn't disqualify someone from being notable for some other reason. It's also irrelevant that all of these activities involve Wikipedia: they're diverse enough to avoid  and there's nothing in  or other policy that says we can't write about Wikipedians who achieve external notability for their Wikipedian activities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BIO1E||WP:SELFREF)

Comment: The litmus test I use is: if Heilman was associated with any other organization, except Wikipedia, would the reporting exceed . I believe it would. The ink blot controversy, using Wikipedia for medical students, Cochrane collaboration and Wikivoyage are all separate events. If someone in a corporation were to repeatedly show up in the news, that would qualify.  Just because it's Wikipedia should not prevent it. Deepest respect to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: would vote '''Delete''' (although marginal), but remain strongly opposed to Dr Heilmann's controversial position and so don't feel I could vote fairly. That said, I'm concerned that his principal claim to notability was less of his own choosing than one might be led to believe. He became the public spokesman for a position held my the vast majority who expressed an opinion (I think the RfC "vote" was eventually about 3 against about 30). Dr Heilmann himself was, after all, re-adding material previously added by others. Maybe the press took such an interest in him as he was "a doctor"? He may be notable by Wikipedia standards, although these seem to be still being debated. But to the non-Wiki world, I fear his article might look a little odd alongside the others linked in the Rorschach test article. He might even be at risk of becoming some kind of blue-gowned poster-boy of Wikipedia's ideals of non-censorship. I'm also concerned that the debate here illustrates that creating such an article as this may itself prove controversial (within the sometimes rather self-obsessed world of Wikipedia). I'd be very interested to hear Dr Heilman's own view here, after all there might be  issues he wishes to address or other points he might like to correct. Surely his contribution can't be censored
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)