Deletion of Harold Ambler

Comment: And  the article writer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: Fails  for lack of significant coverage ''about the subject'' in independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: This is basically a  on which to hang climate change denialism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This is essentialy a case of  that is being blown way out of proportion and which cannot reasonably be considered a fundament for a biography. Fails  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:BASIC)

Comment: The arguments for keep depend on mis-application of notability standards and effectively come down to  and  while the arguments for deletion are based on serious deficiencies in the sources.  The assertion that having  "the third-most emailed piece in 18 months" is notable matches no criterion I've ever seen here, for example. Using a book cover blurb as evidence of notability verges on indiscriminate fanboyism. Despite great effort and great argumentation, the notability of the article subject rests on his writings, which are not covered in a significant way by reliable sources. The coverage that has been presented that is significant is not reliable, and vice versa. There are no relevant targets for redirect or merging
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ITSIMPORTANT)