Deletion of Anthony James Hall

Comment: I agree he doesn't pass , and the ''Lethbridge Herald'' sources are too local to count much for notability. But I think the stories in the ''National Post'' and ''Macleans'', and the brief mention in the ''Washington Post'', are enough to show notability via  as a conspiracy theorist, and the book review in ''The Independent'' adds more mainstream notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: finally, somebody who fails .  I thought that was pretty much impossible.  Anyway, I'm inclined to go for delete per .  Yes, he's had a couple of book reviews but there hasn't been any ''meaningful, sustained, in-depth'' coverage by reliable sources that have editorial oversight.  A quick https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Anthony+James+Hall%22&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB755GB755&oq=%22&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57.760j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Google search shows that there is third-party coverage on him, but the vast majority of said sources are not considered reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: No pass of rof. Could he pass  as a conspiracy theorist? At present I am inclined to doubt it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: as per above.  This appears to be , and the non-local references appear to be trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)