Deletion of Andy Stephenson

Comment: to Black Box Voting or '''Delete''' as failing .  The relevant standard is .  He won't meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the ''enduring historical record'' in their specific field" test, because the contribution, which may or may not enter the enduring historical record was Black Box Voting's, not his, and he did not lead the organization.  A failed candidacy is not a basis of notability by Wikipedia standards.  He fails the "''primary subject'' of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" test by not being a primary subject of anything in a |reliable source except his obituary.  (The result on this test could change in the future, but not by blog posts about him.)  He doesn't meet the "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" test because the reliable sources continued to need to explain who he is (mostly associate director of BBV) every time they mention him.  I appreciate the effort by
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: per wwwwolf. Not reading all this discussion, just the article, there's no compelling evidence of notability at the  level
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I spotted this nomination in AfD earlier on and was not sure on its status and decided not to just throw in a "vote" either way (hence, |assuming good faith). The article did have references, and the subject "appeared" as a possible keeper in Wiki. Both sides of this debate have made good points, but wwwwolf’s input is the most convincing of the article and I agree with those points mentioned. Delete as nominated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: per nom. The only refs on that page that meet  are the two obituary links
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)