Deletion of Nicholas Waters

Comment: tl|db-bio}} for the author and {{tl|db-spam}} for the book - couldn't fail  more strongly if they tried. I strongly suspect that ''my'' book's 317 sales to date has outsold this self-published effort (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=eats+roots+leaves+%22nicholas+waters%22&btnG=Search&meta= 10 Ghits, most of which are blank
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I was going to examine the article on the book, but instead I found: "Sorry, this page has been removed after just a few hours. Grammar fascists don't want any discussion. So much for the bill of rights. Maybe, one day, you will be allowed to find out about this book on Wikipedia." So much for trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I tagged that one for vandalism instead. No sources per  or  to confirm or deny any claims beyond this one book. The news coverage of that book gives some hint of notability, but I'm afraid that one news piece is not sufficient
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: Individual does not pass . What is relevant is whether a subject is |notable, whether the information in the article can be |attributed to multiple independent, non-trivial third party references unrelated to the article subject, and whether the article conforms with Wikipedia policies concerning |the biographies of living persons, |conflict of interest, |copyright matters, and the like. This article does not make the subject appear notable enough for Wikipedia, and searching on Google (what "Ghit" means) does not reveal sufficient non-trivial independent third-party references to this. Hard-copy references from non-trivial sources (from books other than his works, for instance, or magazines) talking directly about this individual would also make acceptable references, but I don't see any of that in this article. Dreariness or the lack thereof does not matter with respect to Wikipedia policies, nor do personal opinions about things. Anti-American sentiment and sarcasm will not bolster your argument, even to fellow non-Americans such as myself. And yes, the article is not written in an encyclopedic matter - it looks as if it had been written for a promotion. Wikipedia is not for getting attention for non-notable subjects. The subject has to ''already be notable''. (Edited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:ATT||WP:BLP||WP:COI||WP:COPYRIGHT)

Comment: Does not meet , or at least I can't find multiple reliable independent sources about the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)