Deletion of Travis McHenry

Comment: Dismissal of McHenry's micronations, or the coverage of them, as not "serious" betrays some ''very'' serious misconceptions about the relationship between the serious and the absurd, starting with the idea that attention for its own sake is the only possible motive for outrageous actions. Review the Wikipedia articles on Diogenes|Diogenes the Cynic, John Cage, performance art, and surrealism, to name just a few, for extreme examples to the contrary. Diogenes has been honored in painting and statuary two millennia after he lived, and was a major influence on Stoicism—for doing things far more outrageous than anything McHenry has done. While I can't read Thomas Harlander's mind, I don't see his lengthy biographical article as simply laughing at McHenry; he notes McHenry's formal training in method acting at the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute|Lee Strasberg Institute. The role of micronations as satirical commentary on the nation-state system comes through clearly in Harlander's article; he even mentions how McHenry's work as a military intelligence analyst contributed to his perception of nations as absurd. The joke isn't on McHenry. Imposing a view of Harlander's source as purely a frivolous "puff piece" or a lampoon of McHenry, or a view of McHenry himself as purely a publicity seeker, does violence to the source material available. Deleting this article on such grounds would be a violation of , which is all about letting Wikipedia reflect, without bias, the sources on which it is based. Only hindsight prevents such an approach from dismissing Diogenes as readily as Travis McHenry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Off-hand human interest or puff pieces only, not seeing the "significant coverage" as called for by . That is enough to see the article deleted outright. But also, IMO extra care should be taken when judging biographies of people who are desperately trying to claw their way to their proverbial 15 minutes of fame, and in cases like this where it is borderline, err on the side of not giving them their cherished spotlight. You all should be ''editors'', not simply repeaters. Cull the noise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I agree with the editors that have characterized the references as "puff pieces" - the news coverage just doesn't appear to be significant or substantial enough to meet criteria in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: It seems the argument for delete largely focuses on the guy's ''absurd'' or notworthy venture. But clearly he is notable. And the coverage is enough to meet . Though I wouldn't object if the content is merged to Micronation but After AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The coverage is not substantial and is not sufficient for the subject to meet . DGG hits the nail on the head
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: substantial , then failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:N)