Deletion of George Olshevsky

Comment: My impression is that his inclusion in our mathematics articles (chiefly concerning his own idiosyncratic nomenclature for high-dimensional polytopes, and chiefly consisting of citations to an unpublished and now-offline AOL page) is fancruft and a violation of  and . The page itself https://web.archive.org/web/20070207021813/http://members.aol.com:80/Polycell/glossary.html#Duoprism viewable in archive states "Many of these terms were recently created ... and do not yet appear in standard geometry texts." i.e. they also violate . Olshevsky is mentioned in 240 or so of our articles on polytopes, but only because of the efforts of a small number of enthusiasts; he has made little or no impact on mathematics research or pedagogy. Searching Google scholar for his works and factoring out similarly named people https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=author%3Ag-olshevsky+-author%3Aag-olshevsky+-author%3Avg-olshevsky&btnG= finds citation counts of 35,16,16, and then single digits for his paleontology (too little for #C1), and nothing for his mathematics. His article asserts that his paleontological work is  (as it appears to be) but it does not appear to have the mainstream attention needed to source its description as fringe and satisfy both  (controversial claims about living people must be sourceed) and  (all material must be treated from a mainstream point of view). And our article is essentially unsourced; if it weren't too old, it could be BLPPRODded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:NEO||WP:PROF||WP:FRINGE||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)