Deletion of Josh Beames

Comment: Having a major newspaper ''feature'' your photograph is not the coverage of  and Wordpress blogs, the Nikon website and the like aren't RS. This just isn't notable. Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Here's a simple source assessment to explain the |depth of coverage of the most Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable sources I found
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42)

Comment: duffbeerforme, I think you are a good editor but none of your "Independence" or "significant coverage" columns here have much credibility, really. It really feels like a  argument to refute the source assessment done earlier in this AfD, but you are trying to justify that argument by discrediting the sources. As I mentioned above, the sources are not New York Times quality but they are independent (and only one is local) and there's enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Just because an article is largely based on someone's quotes doesn't mean it is not independent. Your comments like "Joke by-line" and "indiscriminate local puff" really don't help your cause at all here. I agree this borderline but I think we should err on the side of caution
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)