Deletion of Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination)

Comment: Not notable. In fact in my opinion the previous AfD was wrongly decided. Four people argued for delete and two for keep, but the "keep" arguments amounted, as I pointed out at the time, to (1) "he is not notable, but who knows: maybe one day he will be" and (2) "there is some secondary source coverage (but am not telling you where it is)". The closing admin should have given very little (if any) weight to these arguments, as the first is totally contrary to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the second is completely unverifiable. Meanwhile, the four who argued for deletion pointed out the lack of coverage in independent sources. (It is also worth noting that one of the "keeps" was really "keep until the election is over, and then delete if he loses", and he did lose, so we are left with only one person arguing for "keep", on the grounds that "I know there are sources", without telling us what they are.) I have now searched again for sources, and found his profiles on the web site of the company he works for and the web site of the political party he is a member of, Linkedin, MySpace, FaceBook, a blog post about him written by another member of the same party, one brief paragraph about him on the web site of "The Telegraph", which has such paragraphs on everyone who stands as a candidate in a British election, and so on. I found nothing whatsoever that could by any stretch be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. He fails to satisfy |the general notability guideline, or any part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), including 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)