Deletion of Nick Dranias

Comment: but do not prevent recreation (salt), as per {{U|DGG}} and {{U|Kudpung}} above. I rather suspect that this subject is in fact |notable, although i haven't trudged through all the forest of links to fully asses this, But even assuming that notability is conceded, (which not everyone here would agree with, it seems),  the current article would need a drastic rewrite to achieve POV, encyclopedic tone, and  weight. If such a rewrite happens during the AfD i would consider changing my view, but I don't expect it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NPOV||WP:DUE)

Comment: After all this effort and Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, the article still seems to have only one source that is both independent of the subject and his employers and in some sense about Dranias: the Arizona Daily Independent story "Goldwater’s Dranias joins Compact for America". However even that source has no information about Dranias beyond what's in its title — the content of the story is entirely about CfA. This is not enough for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there is a lack of  material ''about'' this person to support a proper biography.  As someone who has published various items, there are various results to be found in searches, but nothing substantial has been written ''about'' him.  Fundamentally fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:BIO)

Comment: I'll do my best to make one last argument for notability in this case. The argument that I haven't articulated well is that the sum is often greater than the parts.  In this case, we have a number of major news media sources that have requested his comments on are variety of political and legal issues.  I don't know about everyone else, but I don't have MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, etc. calling me up to ask my opinion on such issues. So, why Nick?  Because he is notable and I'm not.  Is this argument based on policy?  Indeed it is. In  we have ''If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability''. And this is what we have, multiple reliable secondary sources.  The coverage in these sources is not trivial because all of these sources are requesting his views on the topics of the articles.  None of sources go into substantial depth but taken as a whole, they provide his political and legal views for which he is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I think this is a case where  clearly applies.  If he is called to testify at the state and national level, then he is clearly notable (there are plenty of government documents to this effect).  If he is asked to participate multiple times by the national news media, then he is notable. I think if we delete this article, it demonstrates more of a problem with our process of determining notability, than that there is no evidence that he is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: per {{U|DGG}} who  has explained the situation  exceptionally  well. It's also  one of the most  blatant  utobiography|WP Autobiographies I've even seen on Wikipedia and hence a massive onflict  of Interest (a term  which  every  lawyer will  readily  understand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:C)

Comment: I probably qualify as "the right" but I've never heard of the guy before. there do seem to be plenty of sources that mention him. In addition to the ones in the article already, google, gnews, gbooks, and  gscholar all return multiple hits for him. they might not be all in-depth, but at a certain point a pile of in-passing mentions gets you past GNG. The article does read like a resume and needs a bunch of work, but that problem is  '''note to closer : I would recommend evaluating some of the sources yourself, and then applying appropriate weight to !votes which indicate there is insufficient sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: I have not yet studied the references that are currently in the article, so I am not !voting for the moment. I would like to point out that much of the contentiousness of this AfD seems to stem from incorrect terminology. For example, the website of the think thank were Dranias works is not something that he "self-published". It is, however, a ''primary'' source that is not ''independent''. As several other people have already noted here, we need ''secondary'' sources AND those sources need to be ''independent'' of the subject. Being a little bit more careful in a BLP AfD might have saved some drama. As for notability, WP uses that in the sense of "having been noted", which needs to be |verifiable through |secondary |reliable sources that are |independent of the subject of the article. Nobody here seems to deny that Dranias is a regular guest on TV shows and panels and such, I would assume that at least some of that has been covered. I agree that the original article, until a few days ago, was horrendously promotional and insufficiently sourced. Normally I would vote "delete" in such a case, because, like DGG said above, it is often easier in cases like this to start from scratch. Despite the hard work of several editors over the past few days, I don't think the article is beyond that "nuke it" stage yet, unfortunately
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SECONDARY||WP:RS||WP:INDEPENDENT)