Deletion of Preston Long

Comment: This could be a borderline case. The question is whether he has enough coverage in |reliable sources to establish notability per  (and , probably). I'm uncertain about the aforementioned blog post, since it's a |self-published source. Some of the other sources currently listed seem dubious to me as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PEOPLE||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:SPS)

Comment: for lack of the independent in-depth sourcing that would allow us to write a |verifiable and |neutral article and that would allow the subject to pass  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I lean delete, but his two Peer Reviewed Articles have not been discussed here (both are reviews, not studies). I am not familiar with the two journals so I am not sure if they meet otability (academics
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I've read the article, looked at refs, and the discussion above. My conclusion is that he doesn't qualify for inclusion under  or . (His latest book, in which he supposedly makes those groundbreaking confessions, is held in just two libraries https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9780972709491. His 2002 book in just six https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9780972281607. His PRESTON method book in just one https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9781424106844.) Coverage in "high-profile skeptic blog posts" doesn't seem to qualify per  and more importantly self-published blogs can't be used as sources per . Also, if the WorldCat data is correct, Stephen Barrett is a co-author to Long's latest book, so Barrett's coverage of Long is therefore not so independent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:BLPSPS)

Comment: See my follow-up below. His first two non-fiction books are self-published. The third one is published by American Council on Science and Health (I suggest reading American_Council_on_Science_and_Health#Media_Coverage|this section carefully), whose "review" is listed as a reference. http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/np-long,%20preston%20h Observe the dearth of library holdings at WorldCat. His novel is likewise self-published. Frankly, all the sources are dubious, even http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chiropractic-abuse-an-insiders-lament-2/ this one which is basically a blog and not peer-reviewed. Several are written by Long himself + another blog post, and a link to http://www.vocact.com/ www.vocact.com which does not verify that he "was voted Chiropractor of the Year in 2009 by the Victims of Chiropractic Abuse", even if that were a notable "award", which it's not. So far it passes neither  nor  nor . Despite some recent copyedits, it still contains large chunks copied verbatim from his Amazon blurb. http://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DPreston_Long%26oldid%3D592977667&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPreston-H.-Long%2Fe%2FB00336UHHY%2Fref%3Dntt_dp_epwbk_0&minwords=2&minchars=13 Duplication Detector. If the AfD decision is to keep it, it will need a fundamental re-write
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)