Deletion of Aaron Klein

Comment: to something along the lines of Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy, or failing that, just into the main WND article..  This person is not notable on his own, but rather has become (in)famous for this apparently concocted faux controversy.  We're in |one event territory here, IMO
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Total self-promotion. Just because this article existed a few months ago doesn't mean it needs to stay. It was written under dubious terms, and now it's only under such scrutiny because of |something he did himself. I don't really get the feeling of any true notability here. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing ote and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: With the NY Times, Telegraph and CBS, notability is adequately demonstrated.  Additionally, most of the newer delete votes are either |WP:IDONTLIKEHIM and |WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which have never been valid reasons to delete.  Most of the older delete votes were posted before the sourcing was added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:JNN)

Comment: and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes  (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Aaron+Klein&source=an&ei=Ywq3Sfe3DoKqsAOcg5G0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_group&resnum=4&ct=title&cad=author-navigational Google Books) and  (http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38312/author Jewish Press
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BIO)

Comment: Meets . That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The sources are pretty good.  He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are |reliable, in particular ''The Jewish Daily'', which is independent and professionally written and edited.  I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots.  My only concern is that |we don't want to publicize a flat-earther
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:FRINGE)