Deletion of Jim Jagielski (2nd nomination)

Comment: The lack of independent sources is a major problem.  He does appear notable in a general sense but until that can be |verified by citing independent sources, I think that deletion is the better course
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Do a little due diligence, guys... Anything more than a cursory examination of the "reliable" sources reveals the following (reposted from talk, from when AFD was inappropriately closed):The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!) with no |reliable sources that establish any sort of |notability, and a '''very clear''' |conflict of interest in which the article serves to promote its subject rather than give any sort of encyclopaedic treatment.  The largest claims to notability seperately (apache.org founder and Slashdot editor) are both tenuous at best -- they each seem to fail  individually, and I just don't see how combining the two comes any closer to true encyclopaedic notability.  Regarding , the sources listed all fail... the http://people.apache.org/~jim/projects.html first source is a self-published list in the subject's own web directory; the http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-author/jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov.html second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself.  The http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28174696_ITM third source is a self-published press release.  The http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/10/198257 fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement.  The http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/ final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:COI||WP:N||WP:RS)