Deletion of Luboš Motl (3rd nomination)

Comment: It doesn't matter how many pubs he has, it matters how good they are. Four with over 100 cites each and an h-index around 20 is somewhat above our usual threshold for #C1. And (though it's a trivial mention of him) I think when one's blogging activities rise to the level of attention in the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1293025.ece that the case for being notable for that is quite plausible as well. He appears not to have been tenured at Harvard but that's par for the course there and nothing to be ashamed of
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: These assorted citation counts and h-index values are good, but can we cite them in the article?  And how do we source them?  I've had a not dissimilar problem in an article about a book that's been cited several hundred times in the primary literature.  In that case there seemed to be no good way to cite this information, since dismissive editors cried  because I'd done the count.  In passing, Abductive - I don't think that we can reasonably describe the subject as a "failed" academic.  Yes, people leave academia because they find it too difficult, but given this subject's apparent significance to his field, it sounds like other factors are in play.  Possibly he's just had enough of string theory?  It is a vast theoretical edifice scraping around for observations to test it against - hardly a satisfactory field to find oneself in.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)