Deletion of Vermin Supreme

Comment: Easily passes criterion 3 which statesalthough such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.Supreme has extensive reliable source coverage in a plethora of newsmedia. A simple google search reveals 40,200 results for the term "Vermin Supreme" and reliable source coverage includes CBS, NPR, the Concord Monitor and Boston.com among others. This individual clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per ,  and . The majority of the citations referenced in the article make only brief mention of him (which is not "significant coverage"). The rest appear to treat the subject as little more than a novelty news item
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: user|Basket of Puppies}} would be advised to read , which is important here because the majority of those Google links don't |cover this person directly and in detail. It's not at all clear that there is sufficient depth of coverage here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Fails , but passes  so it doesn't matter. The cited sources are poor, since most of them don't provide significant coverage of him, but the ''Boston Globe'' article is good and the little ''Concord Monitor'' interview is okay. There's also http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/27812/running-gag this in the ''Washington City Paper'', http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0qY8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=shQGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2434,2378853&dq=vermin-supreme&hl=en this in the ''Bedford Journal'', and other things on GNews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:BIO)