Deletion of Gary Forrester

Comment: Vanity / Spam / Autocruft / |COI (and from a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SPA)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTOBIO)

Comment: per , with a lack of  and a big dollop of . I consider the present article unsalvageable. Take a single sentence: "On 1 January 2007, ''Houseboating in the Ozarks'' was named "Best Book of 2006" by film & literary critic John Otto." If one goes to the blog referenced (item 4 in IvoShandor's list above), one finds that the blogger is not a "film & literary critic" but an Illinois lawyer, and one who happens to be personally acquainted with Forrester. Moreover, if one checks the archive, one finds that the blogger merely wrote that he liked Forrester's book best ''of all those he had personally read'' in 2006. If Forrester is so bloody notable, let some uninvolved party write an article about him; this one should go in the trash bin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:COI)

Comment: per IvoShandar's reference breakdown. It doesn't help matters when the references aren't linked to the text they are supposed to reference, but it looks like the accusations of vanispamcruft several editors have suggested are appropriate. Doesn't appear to meet , , or . Constant berating of editors supporting deletion is a perfect example of  at work, additionally it's a superb way of shifting consensus away from the subject and comes across merely as desperation. If indeed an article's subject was truly notable then a Wikipedia article about them would be inconsequential, when this level of desperation is shown I ask myself, why? For this level of personal involvement someone either has too high an opinion of themselves or it's an attempt to promote themselves for some reason, usually money
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:MUSIC||WP:COI)