Deletion of Christopher Ferrara

Comment: the problem is that the only sources that ''might'' be considered reliable are almost entirely negative. I mean, we ''might'' be able to create an article based on reliable sources but it's going to become a  issue if we ignore the negative in favour of the marginally positive like http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/15452-review-of-christopher-ferrara-s-liberty-the-god-that-failed this review by the current president of the John Birch Society or http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=66&catname=14 this article by Anthony Cekada or http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/01/liberty-god-failed-christopher-ferrara.html this review by the current president of the Center for the American Idea. Most of what is available is material like http://tomwoods.com/on-chris-ferrara/ this from people like Thomas Woods. Most of the puffery would have to be removed and replaced with reliably sourced content which wouldn't be very positive at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: Between the sources identified by Stalwart111 and the interviews/coverage by fairly biased sources, we've easily met .  The hard part is going to be POV.  But our inclusion guidelines are met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm convinced after trawling through the sewer above this comment that Ferrara meets the , but obviously given the controversial nature of his beliefs, the article needs to be closely watched to make sure that the provisions of the  policy are adhered to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: Fails . Just because a person has written a book or two, and is a lawyer, and has good reviews of said book, does not mean they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Also see  for supplementary reading
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTTRUTH)