Deletion of Dana Ullman (2nd nomination)

Comment: From looking for sources which might establish notability one way or another (which I had assumed would be straightforward) most of the results are articles by the subject himself promoting opinions and from what is left I don’t think it is possible to write a neutral page on this person as per  core content policies. The second aspect I assumed could establish notability definitively was the books. I am concerned by the argument above that the wikipedia page is basically a promotional source for the books, about which I wasn’t able to find any reviews aside from homeopathy-promoting websites which cannot under the circumstances be considered neutral. If the author is considered a “foremost spokesman” it should be the case that his books would have mainstream reviews in reliable sources and I am not finding any
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per . The issue is that we need at least a couple of sources that meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. I cannot find a single one. The only one that might arguably meet these three criteria is a piece in the Berkeley Barb, an underground newspaper that might be assessed as having qualified reliability for 60s and 70s counterculture but doesn't cover a current biography. Our standards for sourcing have tightened in the last ten years, we are much more conservative, and this lacks the quality of sources necessary to create a verifiably neutral biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)