Deletion of David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination)

Comment: and '''salt'''. My opinion from the first nomination has not changed. Based on my searching, the subject fails all three of the possible categories for inclusion here: BIO, AUTHOR or ACADEMIC. Fails ; Google News Archive does not find any significant coverage by reliable sources (the only Reliable Souce article I found was a Boston Globe article about the subject's marital problems; I am not arguing this makes him notable, but rather pointing out that the only coverage found is irrelevant to his claims of notabiliy). Fails ; his books are mostly self-published (with the exception of one long-ago book co-authored by Linus Pauling and published by Freeman) and are not reviewed by any Reliable Sources. Fails ; nothing found at Google Scholar. BTW please check out the article's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=David+R.+Hawkins log; this article has been deleted numerous times; after the latest deletion the closing administrator found it necessary to salt the title due to repeated recreations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: and '''Salt''' as not notable, no refs from reliable sources, fails , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: I agree with Tijfo in regards to the newsletter's unreliability in an  way, however I'm unconvinced it's a . There's very little in independent reliable sources about this person in a biographical sense, and I agree with IRWolfie that his publications don't put him on the map for any applicable notability criteria, from  to  or  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLPSPS||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: I closed the last Afd, and followed the DRV to some extent. During the DRV I looked through the sources and did some searching myself, and I'm not convinced that he meets . I'm also troubled by the lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I have seen multiple claims of "awards" - |can someone provide verification of which awards the person has been granted. As shown above at least some of the "awards" such as the "knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" appear to be pure hokum
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN)

Comment: The article does not meet any of the criteria in the notability guidelines.  The relevant ones seem to be , , , and this individual does not appear to meet the criteria listed at any of these
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: He does not have an actual knighthood, as formerip pointed out in the DRV, according to http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/prioryof.htm, any news report that claims he did has done little investigative work. His claimed awards: Huxley, Orthomolecular are fringe pseudoscience awards. The Psychiatry awards are standard achievements for any psychiatrist with a long career; see their requirements. The sourcing is rather lacking, this is the only reliable source we have for the article: http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html. Those pointed out by Uzma are unreliable (they repeat the false knighthood claim), one is a different person, one is a blog, one is a standard notification. These aren't good sources. He does not meet  either. His books are barely cited (: "One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. "); what impact has he had as an author? Basically David Hawkins is as notable as any other Psychiatrist of similar experience; not notable enough. The only difference is that he has written books on pseudoscience; from  we look for the reliable mainstream sources: #Reliable sources not fringe sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I appreciate the work Uzma did in finding the best sources available that mention Hawkins, but the best sources available still fall below our sourcing requirements; they are recycled blog posts,  announcements of events, trivial mentions, and so on. ''Power vs. Force'' topping the ''Globe and Mail'' 's bestseller list would normally be a piece of evidence that demonstrated notability, but I don't think it can be the only one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)