Deletion of Gualtiero Piccinini

Comment: I can see how Thoughtmaker can claim the subject fails the |general notability guideline since there is really not much |secondary source information on him, not much in the news, not much in the non-academic world. One thing I look for in the lede paragraph is the "X is notable for..." line, and the current lede only suggests what the subject is ''working on''. That said, there is a strong http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=sVwspDQAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&pagesize=100 publishing history with many of his articles cited by many others. Further, he published an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is impressive; ditto Popular Science. Further, he is an editor of a journal in his field. So, I am uncertain how to call this one. I bet in ten years there will be more sources. Sorry to be so wishy-washy but I am undecided
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: a GS h-index of 17 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sVwspDQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao probably suffices to pass rof#C1. Also passes rof#C8. Would the nominator like to explain why the primary sources are unreliable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)