Deletion of Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nominator himself commented on how much the article is now improved. Per previous discussions, article clearly passes  1, 4 and 7 (let me know if someone needs more details on this claim). Nominator states "''Finally, the claims that notability is achieved because an article of his was used in a seminar in Germany, and that he translated a textbook that's in use, those claims are overblown and do not a notable scholar make."'', but I think he is wrong, those claims exactly contribute to notability in a huge way if one reads the above listed  policies. Regardless, the paragraph "Resulting lasting impact in the field of Croatian translation" shows notability per nybio in a very obvious way. This is not a standard BLP, it is well researched, well sourced and academically relevant. There is a point at which "no notability" accusations become unreasonable, I hope we do not reach it. Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:A)

Comment: per ,  as some editors above noted. Yes it is kind of on the borderline, but sources are plentiful, and sufficient to pass GNG. Also, I must concede that ANYBIO is met (...contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.) It does not matter how important or unimportant this field may be. The one paragraph conveniently titled in a way to point to this does show this, although I see potential  issues there (not a deletion issue, possibly a re-wording necessary). I tend to vote "delete" much more than "keep", and personally I do not like this article included on here but I do not see this as the usual BLP suspect. I like how some participants try to raise the bar to  (even the article creator foolishly), but that is not necessary since it seems several persons have stated GNG is passed. I tend to agree with Drmies that subject does not seem to pass  4 and 7, but I believe it passes  1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:SYNTH||WP:PROF)

Comment: I don't really see any evidence for  criteria #1, #4 and #7. Note #1: "The person's '''''research''''' has made significant impact", etc. Note also #4: "The person's '''''academic work''''' has made a significant impact", etc. The same goes for #7, more or less:  "substantial impact outside academia '''''in their academic capacity'''''" (all emphases are mine). The only impact that is possibly significant is in fact his non-academic (i.e. activist) work, but as an editor from Croatia I can say that even for local  standards this is barely a blip on the radar. The independent sources report on the initiative, making a more or less perfunctory coverage of the person who started it, so I don't see it as a basis for  claim either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't understand the ins and out of  here. The article has a lot of references even if most are not secondary. Having a TV interview is certainly useful although not itself meeting notability.  looks like it passes but it's marginal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)