Deletion of Jamais Cascio

Comment: as not meeting .  A few minor mentions here and there, and some interesting looking work from time to time doesn't add up to notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: First, I understand the impetus to remove sources one feels are clouding the issue, however, in this instance, at least two solid references were removed (''Wired'' and ''Physics of the Future''), especially after another editor ({{u|MelanieN}}) has referred to them as their basis for a "keep" !vote. In addition, as one of the editors who worked on the article pointed out, the other citations were there to verify facts, not to show notability, and as such, trivial mentions are fine. There are so many mentions of him in reliable sources (hundreds, after you get through all the false positives, particularly the Lifeboat blog), that it makes sorting through them tedious, but the two now deleted references alone meet . But more importantly, he clearly passes , which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". While many of the sources are only brief mentions, they are not simply mentioning him, but mentioning him as "an expert... futurist" (USA TODAY-Oct 29, 2014), "a research fellow at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif., and a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging ..." (New York Times -May 4, 2011), " ...quoted one of our expert participants, Jamais Cascio from the Institute for the Future" (GreenBiz), "a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future" (HuffPo 05/04/2015), etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BASIC)

Comment: as |advert masquerading as an article. Also, the user shouldn't be |canvassing the Teahouse for keep votes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:ADMASK||WP:CANVASS)

Comment: Passes . Also, see MelanieN and Anne Delong. Also, I believe there is too much "do not like" here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Seems to pass ; the first three references alone seem to demonstrate coverage ABOUT the person from independent sources. The article is a little promotional ("and then I wrote" type stuff) but that can be trimmed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Insufficient coverage in . Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: deleted at PROD twice for much the same reasons. The sources are largely primary and passing mentions, and the article cobbled together from them is a bad article that could do with applied . If there's a better article with better sources I might think otherwise, but this article and its sourcing completely fails to be up to the standards required by  and needs to be removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:BLP)