Deletion of Steve Slaunwhite (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, but the sourcing is not getting him over . Five of the ten footnotes are just his own work metaverifying its own existence, which is not how you make a writer notable — you get a writer over  by showing that his books have been the ''subjects'' of ''media coverage'', such as book reviews or news articles about them winning notable literary awards, not just by citing their existence to themselves. But once you chop the five footnotes where the subject was the ''author'' of the source, you're left with a self-published press release from his own organization, an award self-cited to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than media coverage to establish the notability of said award, |user-generated reader reviews on Amazon, and a self-published press release from one of his publishers, none of which are support for notability either. There's just ''one'' footnote here that counts for ''anything'', by being a real book review published in a real newspaper — but it still takes a hell of a lot more than just one of those to get a person over the bar. I also strongly suspect some form of |conflict of interest editing, since the article was created by an  whose only edits to any other article but this have involved creating new wikilinks ''to'' this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:USERG||WP:COI||WP:SPA)