Deletion of Augustus Sol Invictus

Comment: The fact that this person is an unelected candidate doesn't fail the article on  because he has had some coverage supported by sources significant enough to provide a degree of notability.  My main concern with the article is that it shouldn't be a vehicle for self-aggrandizement, as Greyfell wrote. In view of the fact that he seems to be on a political campaign at present, that's an important and current concern. Parts of the article fail  and either have no sources or have the person himself as the source.  With those elements taken out, I don't believe the article has much left. If it is retained, that must be resolved.  I agree that it's possible the article might be added again after deletion, but that is not a reason to keep it. At this moment in time, I fall very slightly on the side of deletion but am primarily Neutral
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:NPOV)

Comment: He's as fringe as fringe gets, to be sure, and fails part 1 of  in that he holds/has held no office. Still, he has received a substantial amount of coverage in independent sources, although the coverage is mostly focused on his antics. I am willing to reconsider my !vote upon hearing from others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Just enough  |RS coverage  (e.g. BBC, Financial Post, Associated Press) outside of local media to cross the  bar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm just not seeing it. Coverage is there, but it seems to fall under  with the remainder being incidental, or political gossip. Much of the coverage is based on self-aggrandizement, which should be weighed more cautiously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)