Deletion of J. Hunter Johnson (3rd nomination)

Comment: as satisfying . Appropriate sources for a standalone article have been found. Special:Contributions/24.151.10.165|24.151.10.165
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: This discussion isn't as close as a !vote count would make it appear. There's little approaching  applied to the page and a reasonable search doesn't find anything much better. As pointed out by the nominator, the only source that looks at all reliable (Kidscreen) ''doesn't even mention the subject''. The standard for  is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Nothing like that here. I don't see any assertions above which refute the nominator's statement that the even more stringent  isn't met by the sources applied. I would have no objection to draftifying, but as it exists, there's nothing here to keep. Even a presumption of possible notability via WP:PEOPLE requires some sourcing for verification. We don't have anything meeting the standard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: We do not automatically keep BLPs that are unsourced or poorly sourced to blogs and random websites that fail . Per  (the very first sentence on the page: '''Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. '''. I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios. I did look for real sources, there aren't any. The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources. The subject of this article fails  at it's very basic level and I've yet to see any argument that it does not. Notability isn't a given, and it can't be established by . EDIT: Also, I respectfully ask that you refrain from making personal statements about me, os trying to cast a pall on my motives. Yes, I believe the article should be deleted as it does not conform to policy. There's nothing wrong with that so I'm not sure why you would attach negative connotations to it. I have no personal animosity and my rationale is based on very objective language
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:OR)