Deletion of Michael Rectenwald

Comment: but significantly cleanup — being interviewed by fringe far-right people isn't |notable, and it needs much better sourcing than his book's own website
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Rectenwald himself has {{redacted}} and identifies its creator ({{u|WikiAssistance}}) as {{redacted}}. The fact that Rectenwald also thanks {{redacted}} for writing the article suggests that some of our COI policies may have been violated here. In addition, Rectenwald appears not to meet  based on https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=91Vnm_8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao his low citation counts and h-index or http://liberalstudies.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/liberalStudies/documents/cv/Michael-Rectenwald-2018.pdf his accomplishments listed in his CV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: the article as it stands certainly has structural and sourcing problems, but the subject appears notable enough to pass .  Sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: h-index of 6 on GS not remotely enough to pass rof#C1. Page advertises subject's work and there seem to be several questions about the creation of the BLP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: It's possible that the subject might be notable on account of their academic writing. I found one credible review of the book 'Nineteenth-Century British Secularism...', I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. This article would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up however, both to conform with MOS and to achieve NPOV, so I think  would be the right approach. Regarding the reported identity of the author, please can we stay away from mentioning that again - we shouldn't be |doxxing users based on off-Wiki stuff, even if their account is blocked
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:DOXXING)