Deletion of Aaron Michael Lacey (2nd nomination)

Comment: This article suffers from two problems. Firstly, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about |verifiability. I've yet to see any reliable source for the Emmy, for example
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: while I agree that this article's topic isn't notable enough for an article, re-nominating it less than 24 hours after the "no consensus" closure seems inappropriate. If we again fail to reach a consensus, will it just be nominated over and over? Or more precisely, shouldn't the previous AfD have been put to |Deletion Review in order to check the closing admin's verdict of "no consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: Per , created by single purpose account, for a non-notable extra
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Fails  by a country mile, and I'm quite staggered at both the notion that it's taking a second AfD to bounce this article and that, with 7-3 in favor of Delete and two of the Keep votes coming from SPAs, that this was closed as a No Consensus.  I would be extremely interested to have the previous closing admin explain why he took a baldfaced, unsourced, unproven assertion of notability from one of the SPAs and used that as a justification to close No Consensus ''without bothering to check on it.''  I swear, every time someone tells me "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information," I think of instances like these where people make presumptions without even pretending to check the facts first
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: A national Emmy claim would be much easier to prove or disprove. If there were such lack of evidence for a national Emmy as there is here, the article would never have made it as far as the first AfD, it would have been speedied outright. I've called the regional branch. I've left emails. No response to confirm or deny the Emmy. In any case, a phone conversation is invalid per  as not verifiable. Considering the stature of the station that produced "In Our Lives", the amount of credit that is given to Mr. Lacey on the IMDB page in comparison to the full body of his work is suspicious. IMDB is used to back up other sources, but is not generally considered reliable because of it's user-submitted entry nature
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: He is not actually an actor--he's an extra who has also engaged in some manual labor around movie sets.  He does not satisfy .  Go ahead and search the ''entire historical archive'' of Google News for him and you will come up with precisely '''''ZERO HITS''''': http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22Aaron+Michael+Lacey.  If he were in fact any sort of notable actor, there would have been at least one news article about him since the beginning of creation, and there hasn't been even one single utterance about him in print.  Most of the "sources" used to buttress this article are indeed self-generated, and don't be fooled, because ''that includes IMDB'', to which subjects can contribute their own resumes.  In fact, the earlier version of this article, before I revised it down to a stub, was nothing more than a  from IMDB.  Additionally, there has been heavy  and  here, both in the writing of the article and in the previous AfD.  The prior discussion was also tainted by behavior that looked very much like , and if we see that again, a checkuser will be the way to proceed.  Finally, I have actually seen him (only because I was looking for him in the corner of the set) in his latest and greatest role, in John Adams (miniseries), in a scene that lasts about two minutes in the U.S. Senate--he is, as always, an extra, just sitting there for a few micro-moments without a line to utter.  This article, in its various versions, has never been anything but self-promotion to the extreme, and the previous AfD contained only one keep vote--a suspicious one at that--so I was very surprised that it survived with No Consensus.  Let's get rid of it now and salt it if it's recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COPYVIO||WP:COI||WP:AUTO||WP:SOCK)