Deletion of Amiram Goldblum

Comment: Notability -- Subject appears notable.  Named chair at major university likely passes .  He may also be generally notable for his activist activities as well (especially if he's notable enough to be drawing attacks).  Another editor mentioned this when-in-doubt guideline for deletion "... where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus".  If indeed the subject requested deletion of this article in its current state, then I would be okay with deleting since it's at least arguably borderline.  But (1) if the subject requested deletion of an earlier article that was attack-oriented, then we need some comment from subject about ''this'' version of the article. (And as I said elsewhere, protection is one of the answers to an article prone to POV attacks and vandalism.) AND (2) if it's just that the subject is expressing doubt about his own notability in chemistry, I respectfully think we can override him based on  (if editor opinion is leading that way, of course
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: We try to keep AfD discussions focused on Wikipedia policy.  Have you found any more |reliable sources discussing this person in detail?  Is he notable for any reason other than a single hiring decision?  |Wikipedia is not the news, but... did any significant newspapers cover the hiring decision that apparently is his sole claim to notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The original version of this page was clearly an attack page created by several s that should have been speedied. It seems to have been created largely to lend credence to an attack website (which I won't link to here) which could then "quote wikipedia". While that has been rectified now (thank FisherQueen), given the borderline notability, I'm going to fall back on Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion_of_BLPs which says that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I think that probably fits here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: With a GS h-index of 16 and named chair he appears to pass at least two categories of rof
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: I am usually sympathetic to requests from LPs to delete BLPs of marginal notability about themselves. In this case, due to the aggressive behavior of a person who implies that he is the subject (I am aware of the possibility of dirty tricks in this area) among other reasons, I am not. As several editors agree, the subject passes rof and the subject is involved in political activities, which adds to GNG. The BLP, in its present form, seems to be objective and inoffensive, and I see no reason to delete it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)