Deletion of Tres Watson (2nd nomination)

Comment: per CBS527 and per Cwmhiraeth. No evidence at all that Tres Watson has received anything like the sort of |independent coverage needed to get anywhere close to passing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: not nearly enough in-depth coverage about him to show that he meets . Most are simple mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  as subject has not received  "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", only mentions as spokesman of the non-notable organisations listed which do not have their own articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails basic  as subject has not received  '''"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"'''. Article has been "referenced" with sources that do not meet all 3  requirements. Two are interviews of the subject which, of course, are not independent, one he isn't mentioned in  and rest are short mentions of the subject with nothing of substance. Notability is not inherited since notability requires verifiable evidence and is not conferred by association. G-searches, HighBeam and NYTimes are producing no helpful sources either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Coverage is about Canvass, not him and outside the local/alma mater interest is focused on one single |new event, the lawsuit. See last afd for an analysis of sourcing to see why it's not good enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)