Deletion of Gladstone (humorist)

Comment: per  (a summary of the rule):  multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Many people above are confusing things ''by'' Gladstone with things ''about'' Gladstone. The only source that really passes is the WBEZ interview, and that isn't particularly strong on its own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42)

Comment: The additional criteria in , including  doesn't replace the GNG, but are an addition to it. As others have pointed out, the number of page views or twitter followers doesn't qualify for #2; they can both be faked, and as said above it's in the subjects own interest to appear to be popular. We don't know what the number of views include, and we have no way of verifying it, so it more or less counts as a "self-published" source, or at least one that isn't independent of the subject. #3 is quite broad, but I really don't see what he's done that is so unique or innovative from any of the links here, or in the article. (In addition there are at least four dead sources in the article.) And then we're really only left with the GNG, which also seem to fail, at least as far as I can tell
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:ENT)