Deletion of Andrew Demcak

Comment: BlazeVOX (another of his publishers according to goodreads although he doesn't appear to be on their authors list) don't give the impression of being self-publishing, but with Ezra Pound as editor-in-chief anything could happen... (They describe themselves as publishers of 'weird little books'. I like it.) Casa Menendez Press I can find nothing about - except that Demcak's name seems to surface along with a mention of his latest work whenever you find them on a certain well known search engine. Print on demand isn't always self-publishing - even big publishers can use it for lower demand works. I don't think Three Candles or BlazeVOX are self-publishing - but could be wrong. Casa Menendez could be the subject himself or he's their only client. Until you get to the level of Andrew Motion or Seamus Heaney (or even Pam Ayres...) notability is not always easy to show proof for. There certainly seems to be a concerted campaign going on (which I an not knocking him for - one has to get one's work noticed). It does make it harder to find the wheat amongst the chaff - the wheat being what complies with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per the lack of ''significant'' coverage in |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: or userfy if requested. The sources are weak and suffer from self-promotion. The apparently long term blatant |COI edits on the article from single-purpose accounts with suspect direct comments in the citations included such as ''"Note: To the people at Wikipedia - None of my publications are from vanity presses; they are all small, independent publishers"'' makes me doubt that a neutral point of view could be possible unless the article were reduced to a stub and there were clear commitment from contributors to avoid COI
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)