Deletion of Zane B. Stein

Comment: Subject has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are ''reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject''" (required by ), or "received a ''well-known and significant'' award or honor" (—emphasis mine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: I have added some more references.  As a creative professional, his profile fulfills . He is the first astrologer to research and write about the minor planet, Chiron and reliable independent secondary sources state that he was involved in the naming of another minor planet, Hylonome.  His work has since led to a popular new area of study in his field.  A search on the web shows that Chiron (astrology)|Chiron is now the subject of > 618k astrology articles, blogs and books etc.  His books have been translated into several languages and appear to be still in print 25 years after first publication.  The German edition is in its 4th reprint according to his publisher (that could be down to bad planning).  He is widely cited by his peers and successors (> 40 book titles listed http://zanestein.com/bio.htm here), invited to lecture at international conferences and has been granted an award for his research and education.   The combined evidence from reliable, independent sources shows that Stein is highly notable within his field.  He has also attracted attention beyond his field, even though astrology studies rarely attract reliable mainstream or scholarly coverage - no matter how popular the subject remains with the general public. Though we might reasonably question the belief that an obscure minor planet could influence us and a few editors question whether fringe practitioners should be included in Wikipedia at all, our rules were not designed to cleanse these type of articles leaving only an encyclopedia full of 'good mainstream guys
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Despite  and , and a substantial amount of puffery and misrepresentation of sources, none of the sources proferred even come close to qualifying as a reliable source according to our policies. The subject has been totally ignored by everyone outside of a small segment of the fringe community. No relaible sources means no article. Personal correspondence and mention in  "for entertainment purposes" fringe sources does nothing to establish general notability. The subjects own claims for notability above are far from convincing. Still have not turened up anything reliable sources in my own searches, and still think the article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: Dominus Vobisdu: Please read . Stein definitely meets criteria (1) and (2), as I have noted above. Your book-sales count is therefore a red herring. That said, you do not have even close to the complete tally of Stein's book sales. To acquire that you would need the yearly Nielsen numbers. Amazon (a single source and an online vendor) is obviously not a reliable source on book sales counts, especially for someone who has been writing since the early 1980s
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: on the merits - I'm not convinced that the subject meets the GNG. That said, it might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER. |Usual Caveats apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Usual caveats (WP:USUAL)