Deletion of Eric Ding

Comment: per #1 based on citation counts in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Though he didn't win his race for Congress, he did get double digit % votes, seemed to have good fundraising according to FEC.gov website for his PA 10th campaign. FEC filings for his committee also showed 3 unions endorsements. And Science seemed to have done an in depth profile on him http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/public-health-scientist-hopes-take-his-activism-congress, which conforms to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The article is rather a mess, managing almost to bury the subject's strongest claim to notability under a mass of what experienced Wikipedia editors tend to see as largely promotional detail masquerading as notability. However, the subject's h-index of 65 would be stupendously high in most fields, particularly for someone who is still only 35. In the subject's field of research, in which papers with 100 or so authors seem to be common, this is obviously not quite so rare an achievement but I am still inclined to regard it as fairly comfortably high enough to judge the subject as notable by meeting #1, particularly given that several of the papers with hundreds of citations either have the subject as lead author or as one of only four or five collaborators (or both). Looking at the article and some of the available sources, I think it quite likely that the subject could also be shown to meet #7 - though doing so would require the subject's campaigning and advocacy activities to be treated more carefully and from quite a different angle than is currently done in the article (and, however odd it might seem, with rather less emphasis on the subject). However, the subject's recent political candidacy, while worth a short sentence in the article as a verifiable point of interest, effectively adds nothing to the subject's notability - particularly as the subject did not win his primary. Finally, a small plea for the (at least apparent) s - this is just the kind of fD which is likely to attract people with only a very indirect connection with the subject but a substantial respect for them. Every remark I have seen from them above suggests no (at least conscious) s and a genuine (if inexperienced and extremely intermittent) belief in building the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:SPA||WP:A||WP:COI)

Comment: I was originally going to stay out of this AFD because it's a complete mess of an article to go through, but it seems like this AFD has just been overwhelmed by people who have been canvassed here. Can keep editors provide a few (just 2-3) independent, reliable sources that cover this person in significant detail? Quality matters more than quantity on Wikipedia, and let's not make participants in this AFD have to go through the  that this article has. &ndash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB)

Comment: This is a really hard one to analyse on  grounds. Per , he is mentioned in several different papers, and is the lead on one or two of them with a bunch of citations. He's been name dropped in a bunch of different articles. He fails . The article is so badly source-bombed and promotional that it's difficult to understand what exactly he's notable for, or how he would pass . I have no comment either way apart from the fact this at the very least needs , if not deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:NPOL||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:TNT)