Deletion of Andrej Grubacic

Comment: I am not disposed to accept the unsupported opinion of any editor, no matter how distinguished. In view of the large amount of political POV pushing that this AfD has generated I think that it should be dealt with strictly by the book. It seems that the subject does not meet any of the criteria of rof. Does he pass on uthor, olitician or other criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:A||WP:P)

Comment: In my opinion, he meets , quite easily, under point number 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."  Noam Chomsky et al. are enormous figures within current anarchist thought, and he's been involved with him and others, so I'd say that this fellow merits inclusion, at least under ANYBIO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Does not pass rof. Evidence that subject passes uthor or olitician is lacking. Subject appears as fringe political activist who has yet to break through to mainstream notability. One of the many articles created too early
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:A||WP:P)

Comment: The only cites on GS are 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. That's all. Subject, as academic or anarchist, does not appear to pass rof #1 or any other category
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Apologies for my belated participation here. As far as I as creator of the article am concerned, Michael Q. Schmidt and DGG above have the right idea. Although anarchism|this is a topic area whose norms and culture are notoriously difficult to translate into the neat academic/commercial/entertainment pigeonholes we find useful as Wikipedians to judge notability, I can confirm that Mr. Grubačić is beyond doubt deserving of an article. Alongside his collaborator David Graeber, he is one of the leading figures in the field of contemporary anarchist scholarship, and is just the sort of |neglected topic of real-world significance Wikipedia in general needs more coverage of. As much work as there is to be done on this article, I do not think the encyclopaedia would benefit from its removal. Regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)