Deletion of Jay Brannan

Comment: as he totally meets  with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Multiple attempts at engaging the subject about his article, including determining what he sees is "wrong" with it, have met with resistance and no further indication about what might actually need fixing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: can we use  here?). He may not be super-famous but he certainly meets notability for bios. If there is something incorrect then source the correct info and move on. There's no reason we can't use verifiable sources similar to media outlets but agree if information is wrong then we should fix it. If the subject and nom want removal of his being gay then they should take it up with http://www.dazeddigital.com/magazine/issue-144 those who report it and not wikipedia, our stating what a source has published is not "pursuing a gay pride agenda". That would actually be problematic POV issue, instead we write articles about what gay pride and LGBT social movements|gay rights are and what people believe is the gay agenda
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per, most prominently, JoshuaZ (notability is, I think it is probably fair to say, now well established I'd suggest that the nominated version relatively persuasively demonstrated the clear notability of the subject, but any dispute about notability has, I think, been well addressed by the admirable  work that several editors have done, and Joshua's application of the "subject requests deletion" provision of BLP is, as almost always it is, quite right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: per |notability for entertainers, the gay thing is sourced, and |there is no deadline&mdash; so as long as there aren't |BLP violations, I see no reason to delete.  Granted, the notability is weak, too, but ironically as a direct result of the guy repeatedly trying to delete the bad publicity (), it was actually revealed by other editors that he actually had significantly more |verifiable coverage in secondary sources than I had initially thought.  That is, I ''would have'' happily argued a delete due to notability issues, but as a direct result of the Streisand effect, it seems that the stuff the dude was trying to delete actually ended up helping to solidify grounds for inclusion. :P  Let that be a lesson to future editors:  always try to use the proper channels
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:TIND||WP:BLP||WP:COI||WP:V)

Comment: They guy certainly pass  and encyclopedic integrity should be the priority here. Obviously being a BLP, and in the interest of getting it absolutely right, the subject's concerns should be heard and responded to but deleting the article is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is already serious discussion on the talk page about improving the article to address the known concerns. While it would be ideal for Mr. Brannan to cordially work with the article's editors to come to a speedy and more amicable resolution, if he wishes to persist in hostilities all we can do is rise above the fracas and focus on making the most encyclopedic and neutral article we can. Deletion just for the sake of deletion is not compatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: easily passes  guidelines; non-trivial coverage in ''New York Times'', cover story for ''The Advocate'' and more. Sources just need to be added to the article. BLP issues (whatever they may be) can be dealt with by editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Brannan is notable per , not only for his music, but especially for the movie ''Shortbus'' (which also has a song of his) with sufficient reliable sources. All the other issues brought up by him and about him should continue to be addressed on the talk page. And please people, lets all |assume good faith
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AGF)

Comment: marginally notable subject requesting deletion. In case the article survives AfD: I support Guy's courtesy edits in view of the over-emphasis on sexuality in a biography that's based on pretty poor sources as it is. From : "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". For the meaning of "a neutral biography", try , specifically 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: This is my default "vote" for anyone of marginal or unclear notability who wants their own article deleted.  I feel in such cases we should respect the subject's wishes.  Besides, as written thee subject does not appear to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: A multitude of |reliable sources all support his being |notable.  Even many of the Delete !votes say that he's not "notable enough," allowing that he does have some notability.  Every subject wishes their entry was the way they'd like it to be, but that's not the standard here.  This |biography meets our requirements for inclusion, and, while well-meant, bringing this AfD seems like something of a bad idea, considering that Brannan's notability has been easily established.  Edit it & improve it;  just don't delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: per nom, notability is marginal, and sourcing is horrible.  most certainly trumps 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BIO)