Deletion of Mark Leon Cowden

Comment: While he might have done quite a bit, none of his accomplishments translated into what Wikipedia would consider to be notability. There are no reliable and independent sources to show that Cowden is notable and as it is, the article pretty much |puffs up the fact that Cowden has ultimately played in a band that (at least while he was in it) did not meet the notability guidelines for  (and even if it did or currently does, notability is not inherited to its members), directed a bunch of featurettes that again, did not inherit any notability () from being a featurette of a notable movie or being around notable people, and his book has not gotten any attention that would help it pass . Again, being in or around a group/movie/etc that has notability does not grant automatic notability to anyone. You must show independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject at length (in this case, Mr. Cowden), which the article lacks. Primary and trivial sources can never show notability, nor can database listings that merely have a list of things that an actor/director/musician/author has done. At the most they can back up trivial facts, but they can and will never show notability. Not to sound rude, but having a dozen sources does not accomplish anything if they don't show notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFFERY||WP:BAND||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NBOOK)

Comment: Now, I don't want to go into TLDR territory but... there are a lot of borderline-notable articles on |fringe topics which end up at AfD sooner or later. Lately I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't ''notability''; it's one of ''neutrality''. When there's only a small number of sources on a topic and they're all in-universe, then it becomes impossible to describe the topic ''neutrally''; and deletion may be the best solution if it's already pretty low on notability. I realise some folk would frame that as a content problem - hence a "keep" !vote - but then we're left with flawed content sitting around indefinitely which we ''know'' doesn't fit the mainstream view but we can't get mainstream sources to fix it. Surely that's not the best outcome for the encyclopædia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement|Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying , , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:NBOOK||WP:CREATIVE||WP:ENT)