Deletion of Piotr Blass (2nd nomination)

Comment: I think his political activities fail  (local gadfly of WP:NOT#NEWS variety, no eternal historical impact), and fails WP:PROF (main claim to notability as I see it is via book co-authored Jeffrey Lang, and the most common blurb I see for the book mentions it containing Lang's dissertation work).  Given the long history of this article, and the failure of it to show a consistent trend towards accumulating stronger claims to notability, I suggest a re-'''salt'''ing is appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Non notable failing candidate. He might be notable some day, but not now. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: for the moment. I am not sure about his notability as a politician (the older version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piotr_Blass&oldid=118212248 does cite quite a few sources) but academic notability under  is passable but weak. It is true that he was the editor-in-chief of Ulam Quaterly, which may indeed have been the first online math journal. However, the journal's existence was fairly brief (1992-96) and it never really managed to get off the ground. Notability from editing Grothendieck's notes is derivative. In terms of his own work, MathSciNet shows 33 papers (the last one in 1996), none are widely cited. WebOfScience shows top citation hits in single digits for his papers. Similarly, little in terms of citability in GoogleScholarhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22piotr+blass%22&hl=en&lr=. However, his book with Jeffrey Lang on Zariski surfaces is widely held in academic libraries per WorldCathttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/14188422&referer=brief_results. Still, for a mathematician, I would want to see some more direct evidence in terms of citability. If judged purely as an academic under , I would probably have !voted "weak keep". I am not sure about the political activities and the past problems with this article on WP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: The article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way.  Fails , fails , fails , fails
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: I remember this article from previous AfDs (this is it's fourth).  The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24|DR decision to unsalt was based on "Significant new information has come to light since the deletion." but reading this new bio, I see no new information, no claim to notability even (failed candidates for local office fail , and a weak claim to pass WP:PROF).  Does anyone know what this "new information" was
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)