Deletion of Phil Mason (2nd nomination)

Comment: between  and , sufficient notability has been established, per sources already present in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: per Web of Science h-index of 34 which seems sufficiently high to pass #C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per #C1 (6 publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar). No opinion on whether his blogging activities are also sufficient for notability, but at least they appear to be adequately sourced for inclusion in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: There are lots of Google hits for Thunderf00t, but after spending some time searching I wasn't able to find a single source that is both in-depth ''and'' published in a mainstream, reliable publication. I also don't see any case for Mason passing . &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: One instance of research getting a bit of press coverage is not enough for ; the sourcing in general isn't enough to satisfy the GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I don't see coverage of this guy meeting  at all. He easily fails  and  as well. As
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)