Deletion of G.C. Dilsaver

Comment: non-notable author with little mainstream coverage - fails . External links violating  and ; edit history meeting ; and first edit being a revert are all problematic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:EL||WP:PROMO||WP:SPA)

Comment: Thank you for providing more sources... I've looked through all of the ones you provided, but I still don't think he qualifies under .  4 clearly does not apply. For 3, none of his writings would be considered significant enough to be on Wikipedia, so that's out. For 2, he may have created a new concept or theory, but again, I'm missing the significance piece. Which leads us to 1, but here's actually where Google scholar is insightful: in none of your searches do we get past the first page of results. For academics or for people who influence academic works, I'd expect this to be in at least the hundreds. I'll walk away from this discussion now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The claims about this author are sourced to a few press releases. The material he has written looks as though it falls under  and there are just not sufficient  available. Notability has not been established when judged against  the criteria listed by the nominator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (:WP:FRINGE||:WP:RS)