Deletion of Peter Swirski

Comment: Y'know, I've seen putative failure of this "h-index" cited as deletion grounds a few times over the past few weeks.  Quite aside from that the index is a widely criticized measure created for ''physicists'' (of which the subject of this AfD is not one), I missed the part where it was written as a valid measure of notability into , or by what methodology Xxanthippe is applying it here.  I place significantly greater reliability on Jaag's research, the more so in that I can follow his links and review it for myself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: while it's doubtful he passes , it's seems like he might scrape by under , which others have noted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTH)

Comment: GS gives h index = 4. Nowhere near enough for rof #1. Other notabilty is not apparent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: That is the problem with these damn academics, |notability is often hard to prove.  However, in this case, it was somewhat easier.  I was able to find references at Google Scholar as provided here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Peter+Swirski%22+English&hl=en&as_sdt=2000.  In addition, there were a few references at Google News, as shown here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Peter+Swirski%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives.  And finally, as quoted from Google Books “…his novels and short stories have been translated into over forty languages and have sold over twenty-five million copies”, as shown here http://books.google.com/books?id=nRQo2I2U60sC&dq=%22Peter+Swirski%22&ei=fwM8S56rBpSuyAS2qLjLAQ.  I believe this meets our requirements for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability)