Deletion of Luboš Motl (4th nomination)

Comment: Passes rof#C1 on basis of GS citations. Please will nominator explain what steps he took to follow efore
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:B)

Comment: I am unfamiliar with  but it seems to me by reading the comments and looking at the references in the article that the subject does pass these requirements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: passes . Why are we having this conversation? Is there some sort of political malarkey
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Per all above. The arguments for this being a vanity page, or that he doesn't meet  somehow, do not convince me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: His citation profile doesn't look that great for a string theorist, honestly. That's a field which can rack up the counts and the h-indices (Ed Witten is the record-holder, after all). Comparing Motl to, say, Barton Zwiebach, the latter has 41 publications that break into the triple-digit range on Google Scholar. Motl has 8. Clifford V. Johnson has 19. Tom Banks (physicist)|Tom Banks has 46. Matthew Kleban and Marika Taylor both have an h-index of 27, versus Motl's 18. (Hossenfelder, mentioned above, works on generally less-cited approaches to quantum gravity that are not string theory and also has an h-index of 27.) Remember, the point of  is not to judge whether someone is a respectable academic doing competent work, but to judge whether they ''stand out from the average.'' So, while there may well be a #C7|#C7 pass here, I'm hesitant to say that there is a #C1|#C1. It would help if the various controversies Motl has thrown himself into were documented in reliable sources, not just https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/23/shakin-the-nuts/ blogs and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl wikis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Easily passes  based on citation counts (2,700 according to GS) in a low-citation subfield of physics. Notability further strengthened by substantial coverage in the NYT article (2nd ref) and numerous mentions in first-class popular and scientific journals. Further strengthened by French coverage of the book on Bogdanov brothers, further strengthened by sources in Czech, further strengthened by various controversies (unfortunately not well covered in RSs) surrounding his departure from Harvard and his blog
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: In case anyone else was wondering, the "OSVČ" on https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=zz-EcVUAAAAJ his Google Scholar profile apparently means self-employed in Czech, and his publication record stops in 2007, the last year our article records him as being an assistant professor. Normally, academics who flame out at that level do so |too soon to have achieved academic notability. But the lack of notability in those cases is not caused by their having left, but by not having achieved enough before they left. In his case, he has achieved enough (in highly cited publications) to convince me of a pass of #C1. Once notable, always notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)