Deletion of RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)

Comment: In addition to the arguments already stated, even the editor who started the article has all of 21 edits in three years, most having to do with this subject.  I don't why people think that |coatracking will work other than to satisfy the editors who only superficially review material.  I have seen no solid reason to keep this, and I see every reason to salt the page so this situation doesn't recur
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I can find no coverage of him in |reliable sources, (other than press releases) thus he does not meet our |general notability guideline. He also doesn't meet our |notability guideline for people either. The current sources used do not comprise significant coverage and the awards are not significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Author has clearly been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources as well as ones directly affiliated with sources mentioned in |reliable sources with significant coverage to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BASIC)

Comment: The article subject is an author who is barely notable even locally. The first AfD survived because no one even looked at the sources and it never got attention. Not one good reliable source contains significant coverage about the subject. The swarms of SPA makes me doubt the notability as well. This is also a delete per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: Comprehensively fails . All works are self-published. Note that his press releases and the WP article state that he was "signed" to Universal Kingdom Print, when in fact he owns the company, to the extent one can consider this a "company". There are virtually no library holdings, zero independent reviews in either the mainstream press or the specialist publishing press such as Kirkus Reviews. The "awards" are utterly non-notable. This leaves us to seeing whether he passes the Wikipedia:Notability|General Notability Guideline. What we have are a series of appearances on local TV stations, where he promotes his book with the background parroting his press releases, i.e. minor local news stories, ditto the article in the ''Pasadena Star-News''. Comprehensive libraries of these press release are available http://www.pr.com/company-profile/press-releases/306998 here, https://www.prlog.org/news/tag/rj-tolson/ here, etc.. It thus fails the GNG as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: obscure self-published writer; tails  and other tests of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I started this with the fact it covered  as it's notable. Won't speak for anyone else, but I saw him speak at an intern entrepreneur speakers conference, and doing some review it currently covers that even more so than before, as it should
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Hmm I just did a source check, looks like they needed to be updated. I found quite a bit, including reliable sources, press releases, and coverage, including from the Pasadena Star. Some of the content was deleted from the sights I assume, but I would say he's notable and meets the recs. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Literally just discussed this a few days ago. I agree about the two users, but I don't think that takes away from the display of notability with multiple independent reliable sources - 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)