Deletion of James L. Erwin

Comment: There are clearly not enough sources for this page, per  and other relevant guidelines. The blog recommendation on which DGG, Bearian and Aisha rely is all of three sentences and says ''nothing'' of Erwin. If all that can be said is that his book is in wide circulation (500 libraries isn't ''that'' wide) then lets have an article on the book if need be. But there is nowhere near enough here for a biography. Because there is absolutely nothing about Erwin. The keep !votes haven't come anywhere near demonstrating notability with reference to relevant inclusion standards, and ought to be given less weight accordingly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: documenting that an independent scholar meets  or  is extremely difficult.  I'll |give the editors at least a week to find |better sources.  He gets so many Ghits, and so few Scholar Ghits, it's hard to sort out spam from citations
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:AGF||WP:RS)

Comment: Keeping this page would be against the consensus developed at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Apparently no significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject. The PC magazine article is blurb about the web site, not Erwin. There is no information about him on the Greenwood web site, other "JAMES L. ERWIN is an independent scholar." The subject meet none of the criteria at . The number of copies of his books in circulation does not, I believe, count towards the author's notability, but if I am wrong please point me to the relevant policy. I don't think one could make a strong case for his book being notable, and I see no evidence that he himself meets our criteria for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)