Deletion of Mark Judge (writer)

Comment: I strongly suggest that editors look at the pre-2018 sourcing, which include multiple reviews of his books in , such as this deep dive into Judge's argument http://reason.com/archives/2001/07/01/tales-of-a-gen-x-swinger  Tales of a Gen X Swinger; A music critic's juvenile cultural politics by Jesse Walker
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: He meets . Even if he didn't, it's dubious he'd meet all three required prongs of the  exclusion criteria. (For the record, this is not the ivote I expected to cast, but, reviewing policy and available references, here I am
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  - coverage (e.g. NYT) of his books on drunkeness culture. Involvement in the nomination schedule (the 1E) only adds to notability and doea not subtract
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: or redirect to the Kavanaugh confirmation battle) on  grounds, with no prejudice towards recreation should he gain more  coverage for his work as an author
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:RS)

Comment: Before recent events brought him more noteriety, he was already the author of multiple books related to Georgetown Prep life and Washington D.C. area culture, and served as a contributing writer at prominent outlets such as https://dailycaller.com/buzz/mark-judge The Daily Caller and https://spectator.org/bio/mark-judge/ The American Spectator. The recent events magnify these existing themes even more, so his bio should not be seen as a  violation for "only for one event." The third criteria of BLP1E is not met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  #3. Random accusations by random classmates ought to be nuked (''especially'' from the lead) until third-party analysis is published by reliable sources. But that's not a reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I don't agree with nom. Subject passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: fails / as he doesn't otherwise appear to be notable - article would be deleted if not for the recent controversy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and '''Note''' that , , and  do NOT apply because the  books were reviewed and cited (checked titles in gBooks) years before his high school drinking buddy was nominated to the Supreme Court, and those reviews carry him pas .  The fact that Judge's life, career and books - several of which are about his drunk, high school partying, have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle.  Between the book reviews, the discussions of his books in secondary sources (some of which pre-date the nomination battle,) and the coverage sparked by the nomination he has 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:SIGCOV)