Deletion of Johnny Hanson

Comment: The speedy deletion process '''is''' fallible, but so is the AfD process. (Both are run by humans, and AFAIK nothing run by humans is quite infallible.) Pretty much all admins try in good faith to do a proper job when checking speedy tags. Removing key relevant info and then tagging for speedy deletion is |disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and not far short of |vandalism, but removing unsourced info because it is unsourced, and then tagging because what is left qualified for speedy deletion, in the good faith belief that the article is unlikely to be legit is reasonable, '''if''' the article actually fits one of the |speedy criteria. Using AfD to get a sort of declarative judgment that an article should be kept is at best unusual, and IMO not generally a good idea.  Starting a discussion on the article's talk page would be better, as deleting admins are supposed to look at the talk page. (They ought to look at the history too, but that is less certain
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:VAND||WP:CSD)

Comment: violates , as far as I can see (no major awards).  Just a promotion.  &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)