Deletion of Miguel González-Gay

Comment: no evidence from  that this individual meets notability criteria at . Paper count isn't really valid as an assertion of respect in his field, but simply verifies that he exists and contributes to it. (Roughly, it's like saying a site meets  for having 1 bazillion members!) Something more substantive than a blanket unqualified statement that he is "well known" for certain work needs to be presented, and I'm not finding much through my own cursory research at this point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO||WP:WEB)

Comment: As I indicate on the talk page, the "number" of papers seems meaningless per ... as someone disciplined in science/medicine (i.e., thanks to my father), I know that inflated paper counts can happen. Peer-reviewed journal article counts are just that: an objective measure of how often one publishes. Granted, the number is directly proportional to the credibility of the research, but at the same time, I am hesitant to say that articles ''by'' the man should be used to gauge notability per one of the six criteria at . Rather, articles ''about'' the man should be used... i.e., third party cites indicating why he is notable in his field, what his peers think of his work, how significant they perceive it to be in the field of rheumatology, etc. Some sort of  rather than just the PubMed listing count
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROFTEST||WP:PROFTEST||WP:RS)