I think he is notable, but the article was impossibly unsuitable for an encyclopedia; if you write it, properly,there can be an article.
You will need to rewrite the articles to Wikipedia style; a good place to start learning it is our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. I do a lot of work with articles on academics, so, more specifically:
The standard is WP:PROF. You need to show he is an authority in his subject. This is shown by normally by 3 things: highly cited publications, awards, and positions.
First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions in chronological order, giving the specifics and the dates. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly in full bibliographic format, getting citation figures from Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source. The first three you listed are not I think his important work. In his case, the citation figures will be enough to show notability.
Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership). I need to check about the Leffingwell lecture--the information in the introduction is certainly usable, but I am not sure it shows notability. All material quoted needs an exact source. The Wikipedia format for citation is a little tricky: the simplest way is to go to your user preferences page, find the subpage for gadgets, and enable the one ProveIt. It shows up on the bottom of the screen--just fill in the boxes.
It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference. Remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. The copyright license form for the photo is not filled out properly--see the instructions. The full formal procedure must be followed,and it has to be done by the person who owns the copyright , who is apparently the photographer, --see WP:DCM.
Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, ofr state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it. '
Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, or CVs, which are usually more expansive.
There are a few specific things that were unclear His interests include controversial performance boosting technologies such as Oscar Pistorius' Cheetah running blades and other sports equipment, rendering a possible advantage to those who can afford to buy it." does this mean he opposes their use--it needs a reference to a published source. There is a problem with the book--it is self published, and I do not see that any library in the US currently has it. Kirkus Reviews are normally significant, but it is in Kirkus Indie, which I consider unreliable. It can still be included, but unless it gets to be a best seller, it won't make him notable as an author. It gets a minor mention after the journalism.
Organize the material to show his bio first, then his professional career as a researcher, then his journalism. After that goes the list of major publications. I see you have a user draft in your sandbox--let me know on my talk p., not here, when you have rewritten it, and if it's even close, I will make the necessary adjustments and move it. I doubt anyone will challenge it after that. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
is