Deletion of A. H. Lightstone

Comment: obscure was perhaps the wrong word; my point was having written papers on your subject is not usually a criterion for inclusion, unless the papers are notable or the subject especially so. Otherwise every academic would merit an article and  sets the bar considerably higher. On citations Google is only a rough guide and 75 is not an especially high number for something written 35 years ago, while the even older article which seems to be the main basis for his notability has been cited only nine times
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: His research productivity was low, but he wrote a large number of textbooks, so I think the case for #C4 may be stronger than for #C1. Unfortunately this was long enough ago that it's difficult to judge how widely adopted those texts were
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I think, rather than basing it on  (although that seems possible too) the clearest case is via the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" clause in . We now have in our article nontrivial coverage of four of his books, each with nontrivial content about the book (not just a title and publisher) based from multiple published reviews. Worldcat lists ''The Axiomatic Method'' as in 431 libraries, ''Mathematical Logic'' as in 396, ''Symbolic Logic and the Real Number System'' as in 535, and ''Nonarchimedean Fields'' as in 354, all good numbers for this sort of technical book. I think that's enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: What other articles exist is irrelevant, as per . If he satisfies #C4 then that should be supported by reliable sources that attest to his impact not just editorial judgement, and if he's notable they should be possible to find
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:PROF)