Deletion of Daniel Duggan

Comment: No |notability asserted. Not |verifiable. Not one single solitary |reliable source. All |original research from the subject of the article. Blatant |conflict of interest.  Former General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:COI)

Comment: unless |significant coverage from |reliable, |independent sources are found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: per . And as much as this case probably warrants it, let's avoid mentioning vanity in AfD's
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as failing  requirements and presumably |self-written. Duggan may well be on his way to notability by Wikipedia standards, but he is not there yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AUTO)

Comment: Yes, absolutely. This is why articles on people that are clearly not notable, or even those that are pretty obviously hoaxes are not speedy deleted (as long as there is an assertion of notability) Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria|see here. The speedy criteria are actually very narrow in this regard, and this is why  can be quite important as a mechanism to avoid lots of AFDs. Making sure that there is proper review of any potentially valuable article is considered more important than minimising discussions, so just because these articles lead to a lot of PRODs and/or AFDs doesn't mean that they will be speedied - as we get more contributors we just need more reviewers (or Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion|change the process, of course). Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)