Deletion of Cal Newport

Comment: A GS h-index of around 20 is barely adequate for rof#C1 in this very highly cited field. Assistant professors are usually not notable. Too early. A possibility is uthor but I don't think there are sufficient in-depth independent sources to pass this. The BLP is disadvantaged by much puffery
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:A)

Comment: The article is so badly Wikipedia:Wikipuffery|puffed out with primary sources, blogs and similarly unreliable sources, and sources that are reliable but not about the subject or not in-depth enough, that it is hard to discern any notability. Of the 34 sources in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cal_Newport&oldid=596939558 current version of the article, reference 3 is an in-depth profile in a local student newspaper, references 24 and 25 are in reliable sources and list the book as one of the top ten of the year. References 28, 29, and 34 are all in the same (reliable) source (''Forbes''), but one of them really is an in-depth book review. Reference 31 is a ''Wall Street Journal'' story that also includes in-depth coverage of Newport's book. I think this level of sourcing is adequate for , but all the other sources should be trimmed, and the article itself trimmed to what its reliable sources can support. As it is, I agree with the deleters that this is far too promotional
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)