Deletion of Diego Bubbio

Comment: GS h-index of 4 https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1sXT6x0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao insufficient for rof
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Multiple published book reviews provide in-depth analysis of his contributions, and the fact that the reviews are of multiple books saves him from . He probably passes , a lower bar than 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)

Comment: as ; an author of multiple published books, with substantive reviews present in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Published books receiving numerous reviews and attention in national broadsheets for (controversially) receiving large sums of money. And that's just what's already in the article. Meets the GNG and probably  unless we're playing the "guidelines say whatever I want them to say" game
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: ping|Ali Pirhayati}} I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel with this roundabout interpretation of the GNG. We fully recognise that more tends to be written about notable academics' work than on the people themselves. That's why  exists. However, books reviews and citations in other scholarly works are |routine in academia and do not amount to significant coverage. #C1 outlines a very longstanding consensus on how we assess the notability of an academic from the impact of their work, and Bubbio clearly does not pass it. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:ROUTINE||WP:PROF)