Deletion of Gideon Polya

Comment: His academic publications are on the borderline for #C1 but if that were all we had to say about him then I think we wouldn't have material for an article. The rest is unsourced political detail and badly-sourced and somewhat inflammatory-sounding (from the titles) self-published political material. With little way to get a neutral mainstream-sourced judgement on its significance, I think we're better off without it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Sure the article is poorly written from more than one aspect, but this is not about CLEANUP.  From what I can tell there is quite sufficient to support  for  even if the subject does not meet a specific NSUBJECT.  The subject seems to be quoted across many genres and in many languages.  Just a very very small sample of what can be very easily found are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:GNG)

Comment: As best I can find, he retired as an associate professor in 2003.  He doesn't appear to have been granted emeritus status per https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1007790/Biochemistry-at-LTU.pdf.  Citation record is marginal.  In short, the case for  looks weak at best.  Not sure about .  The material about his left-wing opinion pieces looks 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:UNDUE)