Deletion of Mark Lindquist

Comment: meets , numerous reviews for his books from |reliable sources, article  includes them, btw ''The King of Methlehem'' meets  with multiple reviews, Lindquist's article has 2 here is more: ''Kirkus reviews|kirkus'' - https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/mark-lindquist/the-king-of-methlehem/ "Lindquist doesn’t glamorize drug life: Howard and his colleagues are described as the living dead, with teeth like “dying brown and grey pegs poking out from swollen gums.” But evocative details, such as the steps necessary to create meth from a mix of cold medicine and automotive supplies, enmesh us in Howard’s mad world right up to the inevitable, satisfying conclusion.", ''The Seattle Times'' - https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/the-king-of-methlehem-meth-madness-in-pierce-county/ "The story is thus shot throught with inside knowledge, from law enforcement and legal procedures to the grubby, scary details of making and using meth.", btw, page can be |protected to reduce trolling/npov issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:RS||WP:NBOOK||WP:PROTECT)

Comment: and tag for improvement, sourcing.  The coverage of this dude visible in a news archive search is is remarkable, stuff like ''"Legal and literary hunk Novelist and Pierce County deputy prosecutor Mark Lindquist is named one of People magazine's 100 most eligible bachelors"  Reid, Cheryl. The News Tribune; Tacoma, Wash. Tacoma, Wash04 Aug 2000: SL1.''  His books got enough reviews to pass ; many more than are now in the page.  Can't see a justification to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: AFD is not cleanup. It is correct that the subject would not normally meet  (because of his position as a county prosecutor) and but is is hard to say that the subject fails  with a review from the New York Times. In combination, the subject easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: I do not like being a deletionist but we have a set of "rules" and I judge AFD's according to that. I would like to keep more articles but keep hitting brick walls. Per discussions above I removed the blatant policy violations, since this is not "cleanup", to try to justify keeping one. We can keep the article and continue discussions on the talk page for adding aspects of the actually non-notable prosecutor content. Either there is collaboration or not seems the only choice. If not I will change my !vote again and attempt to see if |attack page and |BLP policies are jokes or not. I would like to go about my proverbial rat killing (no actual harm to animals intended) and per my opinions and suggestions try to add material to Wikipedia and still disallow the chaos of circumventing these multitude of the policies and guidelines that are intended to produce a quality encyclopedia. That, I realize, is just my opinion but does not appear to be a Trojan Horse. An help here would be appreciated
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:attack page)

Comment: The article has several problems. A major contributor has .  material is continuously being included in the article. ~~~~  {{subst:Unsigned|1=Rocktober2018|2
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:PROMO)

Comment: As someone who was elected to political office and got some press coverage for his performance in that job (however bad it was), he should satisfy the basic requirements at , and his books have gotten some notable reviews (again, however bad) which helps with . He has some legitimate coverage about his alleged misdeeds in his region's news media, but also a bunch of critics' sites like this: https://truthaboutmark.com/. If the page is being vandalized by critics, some sort of protection may be in order
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The article is comprised  content, and sources are from questionable sites
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: that I have added several reviews of his books in major daily papers to the page and to the page on his bluelinked novel.  More exist and can be added, but he clearly passes .  In addition, there has been  of him over the years, by no means all negative.   '''Note''' also that page is now a sourced stub, mostly just listing his books, and attack material has been deleted.  I suggest hat we Keep and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: a slightly odd reason for the weak here. I think notability is clearly established by  criterion 3. The legitimate potential grounds for deletion/redirect are attack page/completely non-NPOV. I do not feel those are clearly satisfied now, thus moving us into the realms of clean-up rather than removal. However we are also not clearly out of that area - hence the weak keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)