Deletion of Howshua Amariel

Comment: There are hardly any reliable third-party sources. We have a 419 word article in the Jerusalem Post and a couple of mentions about his actions during the 2001 Republican National Convention. (One problem is that there is so many of the references are pretty much junk it's hard to separate any wheat from the chaff). There is certainly no evidence of notability for his self-published translation. Being lengthy, detailed or interesting are not relevant to whether it should be kept. I think it fails otability (people) which calls for the person to have ''been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,which multiple coverage of the same thing is not and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.'' So far as I can see, the subject clearly fails these criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per nominator, and because "Howshua Amariel" is promoting a self-created cult that is quasi-Judaic with his own concocted theories that would violate  and . The article itself violates  and  as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOR||WP:NOTMYSPACE||WP:BIO)

Comment: per . Not notable, and this is not the place for advocacy, soapboxing and OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)