Deletion of Jeremy Sapienza (2nd nomination)

Comment: The Keep proponents suggest that the subject is notable or that they "suspect" he might be.  The previous AfD is even worse, where the first Keep proponent says outright that despite a lack of evidence proving so, he thinks Sapienza is notable anyway ... and several others proffered as their reasoning to "Keep per the first guy!"  It is the responsibility of Keep proponents not to say "Well, uhhh, I guess he's notable, because, well, he just is."  It is their responsibility to proffer genuine evidence that a subject meets the criteria of ,  and .  This evidence does not seem to exist in this case; fundamentally, where are the |''independent, published, reliable sources'' about this subject?  I could find none
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:RS)