Deletion of James Dubro

Comment: for lack of evidence of passing . I'm willing to change my mind if sources specifically about the subject or his works and covering the subject in nontrivial detail are found, but the ten detailed above are completely inadequate, and the five new ones added since I analyzed those ten are even worse: bare-url links, to Google book web pages, for books whose title and authorship does not make evident any connection to Dubro, with no page numbers listed for finding anything about Dubro within the books. Searching these web pages reveals that Dubro is mentioned only trivially in three of these books, that he is not mentioned at all in a fourth, and in a fifth it is revealed that one of his awards is a service award of a type that does not lend much notability to its subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY|Notability is not temporary. This subject was publicly notable as a Canadian crime expert, enough to have headline recognizability as late as 2009 as evidenced http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/07/10/crime_writer_james_dubros_five_infamous_toronto_organized_crime_hits.html here. The subject was notable for writing about crime, and notable for documentary films, and taken seriously enough to be considered http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4382472&Language=E&Mode=1 worth some time from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding justice legislation. The nominator's rationale, "unverified research", is only an argument to remove or revise or source information within the article. This subject meets  as, at the barest minimum, they headed a trade group elected by professional peers, even if the other sources for notability are discounted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Dubro clearly passes , having published several books with major publishing companies (Penguin, Macmillan), and being talked about in mainstream media for decades. Also, there was quite a lot of TV documentary work which, with the books, adds up to a "significant body of work". The shape of the article is irrelevant to determine notability, it can always be tagged for clean-up or wikifying
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: only because the necessary cleanup isn't quite enough to put this into  grounds.  As far as I see it, the strange editor comments were all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586187137&oldid=586185790 added here as citations to additional resources; it looks like we have sufficient reliable sources.  First sentence is the biggest example of  that I can ever remember seeing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:BOMBARD)

Comment: Article needs some cleanup (has some strange editor comments inlined), and that wall of sources in the first sentence should be pared down to the best ones. But there are sources to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)