Deletion of Vernon Coleman

Comment: I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. He clearly meets / regardless of the soundness of his claims and current state of the article. Since most of his work was pre-Internet it's not so easy to gsearch, but even still I found several sources in the first few pages of hits: According to http://www.sundaypost.com/travel/international/my-favourite-holiday-vernon-coleman-1.313956 this source he's "sold more than two million books in the UK alone", http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/doctor-on-the-make-1303622.html The Independent (arts and ents section, 1996), http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-03-17/leader/the-rule-of-lawanimal-rights-human-wrongs-4289560577/ The Independent again, http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Interviews/Interview%20with%20Vernon%20Coleman.htm interview with Animal Liberation Front (eh), Lengthy review of Betrayal of Trust in The Ecologist vol 28 no 6 (Nov/Dec 1998), Several works reviewed in The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health (http://rsh.sagepub.com/search/results?fulltext=%22vernon+coleman%22&x=0&y=0&submit=yes&journal_set=sprsh&src=selected&andorexactfulltext=and search results) (about as respected as journals get, I think -- now known as Perspectives on Public Health), http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/what-seems-to-be-the-problem-doctor-coleman-1105857.html The Independent again... Looks like while his books are self-published, they've received pretty considerable attention in respectable publications. I don't know that any would independently meet NBOOKS, but the combined coverage lends notability to the author, especially since he seems to be a rather controversial figure. --&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: As an author if you make ''The Sunday Times'' Best Sellers list, I would determine you immediate meet .  widely comes into play regarding controversy and criticisms regarding this person's work. The nomination almost entirely focuses on the nominator's bias and opinions of the subject's work. Wikipedia is not censored, not for original research, and not a soap box to suppress articles not in alignment with your views.  In terms of actual policy based arguments, there's reference to  which is a stretch by any attempt. The article is poorly sourced, needs considerable work, NPOV, and seems to have major gaps for some information. Those are all |surmountable problems and well outside of |notability issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:ATA||WP:N)