Deletion of David Ostad

Comment: Actual news sources are next to nil.  Of the 20 citations (actually more like 10, since the user didn't user REFNAME tags): Seven come from court document PDFs (lending an unhealthy whiff of ), and three are the same URL ending in .exe, which I'm totally not going to click on to find out what it is.  And http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/29/1030508098954.html one of the cites clearly does not support the statement the article uses it to support ("There are news reports about alleged unsatisfactory care by Ostad regaring sic patient Tanya"), and in fact says something neutral or OPPOSITE (that Ostad is an okay doc who treated Tanya), so the whole article seems a little like a bad-faith POV create to me.  Getting sued a lot and being a bad doctor are not sufficient proof of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: being sued by a major multinational corporation makes you notable, and the article has |reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)