Deletion of Bruce Gilley

Comment: We do in fact have |room for every academic, although it probably wouldn't be a good idea to use it. However, I think this subject quite clearly passes our |notability guideline for academics. He is https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=nNUGaWcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao highly cited, and his work on political legitimacy in particular appears to have made a significant impact, per #C1. His absurd paper about colonialism has also generated quite a lot of coverage (cited in the article), although an article based on that alone would probably be a . &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Passes  and .  ot paper.  You doh't have to like him or his paper for him to be included. His oeuvre is ''far'' broader than the one paper, and he is noted widely in s
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: Passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: He has numerous pieces with significant citation counts, easily meeting . There also appears to be enough significant coverage, outside the coverage of the Colonialism dustup, that he probably meets  as well (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/the-president-always-gets-something-spicer-suggests-trump-gained-concession-from-china ''The Guardian'', https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2010-05-01/finland-station ''Foreign Affairs'', and https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/05/10/professors-shouldnt-be-forced-to-pledge-allegiance-to-diversity/#4f92a2d911cc ''Forbes'' -  and those are just a few). Several other articles, while not in-depth, quote him as a "noted Sinologist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSCHOLAR||WP:GNG)

Comment: passes Passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG)