Deletion of Dick Stoken

Comment: meets , books have received multiple reviews, in addition to those added to article by {{u|RebeccaGreen}} there are also (oh no! trade reviews, but available online yaaay!:)); for ''The Great Game of Politics'', ''Publishers Weekly'' - https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780765307323 "Serious students of the American presidency will find Stoken's thinking a bit simplistic as well as present-minded. ..  But less-schooled readers may find some help in thinking about the approaching 2004 election.", ''Kirkus Reviews'' - https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/dick-stoken/the-great-game-of-politics/ "Amateurish exercise in political history, turning on half-correct assumptions and half-formed arguments. .. There’s nothing much new here, and nothing much worth remembering; readers would do better to consult the far more powerful work of Kevin Phillips and David Hackett Fisher, argued with a welcome dearth of exclamation marks. A PowerPoint presentation to Rotarians, maybe. A book, no." (ouch!!), ''Booklist'' - "There is nothing earthshaking here as Stoken lays out an analytical framework to track this ebb and flow back to George Washington's administration. .. Interesting and timely writing, especially for those who like their theories neatly packaged.", and ''Library Journal'' - " Unfortunately, the author's simplistic characterization of the ideologies of America's two main parties lacks objectivity, his interpretation of history is problematic, and his analyses of presidential politics seriously flawed." (https://bepl.ent.sirsi.net/client/en_US/default/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:1256508/one?qu=The+great+game+of+politics+%3A+why+we+elect+whom+we+elect&rt=false%7C%7C%7CTITLE%7C%7C%7CTitle reviews here), and the journal ''Long Range Planning'' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0024630195915877 reviews ''Strategic Investment Timing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Reviews on Amazon are not considered eliable sources, as far as I am aware. For someone whose first books were published from the late 1970s to early 1990s, I would not necessarily expect to find much on Google either. There are reviews and coverage of him (starting from 1966, 12 years before his first book was published) in digitised newspapers on Newspapers.com. I will try to add some
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: It appears that the article is referencing some local awards. No source is written about him as the subject. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I have started adding some reviews and coverage of his work and writings. It should be sufficient already to show that he meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)