Deletion of Jonathan Cook

Comment: the subject may not appear to meet the general notability guidelines with the coverage provided. It does not appear to be a ''Signifigant'' amount coverage. Also, although the sources may be ''reliabile'' in that they are providing facts, would less biased sources give him coverage? He looks close but I certainly would not say it is an ''obvious'' keep. He is a professional writer just like people are professional insert your occupation here. I think this would be an obvious keep if  was met by showing that "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of...multiple independent... reviews." There should be no concern if some more reviews on his books are provided (maybe like the New Statesman piece
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Comparing this subject to others is inappropriate () and even though he is published, the coverage on his publications is lacking. However, there is coverage out there. I can't honestly say I would be concerned if this wasn't a contentious article. That being said, I have seen subjects with similar questionable yet good enough notability moved into a sandbox until the fluff and other concerns are addressed. I think the comments in this discussion show that there are problems so hopefully something like that isn't needed. I personally would start off by removing the poor sources (dissadentvoice) and replacing them with good ones (maybe the Isabelle Humphrie piece if someone can find the complete review and it is OK
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)