Deletion of Andrew Lih (2nd nomination)

Comment: Clearly fails . GS based h-index is only http://quadsearch.csd.auth.gr/ssearch.php?m=1&wtl=1&frop=1&lan=1&tos=2&pp=1&query=%22Andrew+Lih%22&query2=&search=Search&sst=1&ResPerPage=500&a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=1&a5=1&a6=1&a7=1&a8=1&a9=1&a10=1&a11=1&a12=1&a13=1&a14=1&a15=1&a16=1&a17=1&a18=1&a19=1&a20=1&a21=1&a22=1&a23=1&a24=1&a25=1&a26=1&a27=1&a28=1&a29=1&a30=1&a31=1&a32=1 4, and he has only one work with triple digit citations (a 2003 paper in ''Nature'' about Wikipedia). Everything else he published has very low citation count so far. Most academics write books; this one happens to have written one about Wikipedia, which has a page here as a bad case of . None of these are reasons to keep the article(s). Finally, there's no coverage ''about'' him, all the above "keep" votes are some Wikipedia editors' subjective interpretation of this person's importance based on his work. Further, he is not listed as faculty at Columbia University as this article claims https://directory.columbia.edu/people/search?filter.searchTerm=andrew+lih, and the OJR http://www.ojr.org/ojr/education/1077755580.php article is about Sreenath Sreenivasan, and only has passing mentions of Lih. It's possible he was visiting faculty at Columbia, as he is http://www.andrewlih.com/Welcome.html now visiting USC, but I see no clear reference for the former claim
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:SELF)

Comment: Some combination of  #1 and  #7 - he's widely cited as an authority on, among other things, Wikipedia ;-). We even have an article on his book, The Wikipedia Revolution
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:PROF)