How credible is William Lane Craig in academia? I often see atheists claiming that he is simply not credible and he simply a skilled debater. How credible is he at all? Does he make good arguments? Does he possess intellectual integrity? How strong is the Kalam Cosmological argument?
I cannot attest to his credibility (or lack thereof) in academic philosophy, since I do not work in it, but I still feel the urge to vindicate his philosophical abilities. Often it seems that Craig is critiqued on the basis of the lay-level books he writes and debates he participates in. Certainly one gets the impression from his debates that he is very sharp and is able to formulate rather cogent responses on the fly, but they are far from displaying the extent of his knowledge and philosophical acumen. I think if you read his more scholarly works, you'll be tremendously impressed, even if you disagree with most of his conclusions, especially by the diversity of topics on which he can speak.
For instance, his more recent book "God and Abstract Objects: The Coherence of Theism: Aseity", published by Springer, is representative of this. In this book he launches an attacks on the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument for Platonism and Quinean criteria for making ontological commitments; sketches and critiques realist and anti-realist options, specifically showing how theists might find anti-realist options more agreeable than realist options (especially for those who wish to preserve divine aseity--he himself is an anti-realist). In addition to this written work, he has also given two lectures which I highly recommend, the C.S. Lewis Society Lecture and the Cadbury lectures (Watch out! There are five Cadbury lectures and they are very engrossing!). In these lectures you get better grasp of Craig's philosophical acumen and range of knowledge than in his debates---it is truly astonishing how much this fellow knows.
I believe there's some interest in Craig among professional philosophers of religion; but others, such as Plantinga and Swinburne, are much more prominent. Consider the number of references to each in the SEPh entry on philosophy of religion.
That said, about 70% of Anglophone academic philosophers are atheists, and very few have much interest at all in philosophy of religion. I suspect relatively few academic philosophers have any opinion on Craig one way or the other.