Deletion of Michael Kumhof

Comment: I find the nomination rationale here rather too brief to be entirely convincing in this particular case. In most fields, we would usually find an h-index of 32, as given by GScholar, high enough to be regarded as sufficient evidence that the subject is notable under #1, even if (as in this case) they did not hold an academic post. Also, when the first page of GNews results shows his work being taken seriously by the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and Neue Zürcher Zeitung, there seems to be a very strong case for . Having said that, I realise that economics might well be a field where an h-index of 32 is not significantly high, and that his employment as an in-house expert at the Bank of England and previously the International Monetary Fund could be used as an argument that some of his apparent notability (though, I would argue, by no means all) really attaches to his employers rather than him. But if these are regarded as sufficient reasons for denying him sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia article, I would prefer to see them stated - and open to argument - rather than left for the rest of us to infer
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:GNG)