Deletion of 2 the Ranting Gryphon (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: no indication of any notability outside of fan videos, self-produced DVDs and appearances at fan conventions. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that we can't build a |verifiable encyclopaedia article out of these sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: with no prejudice against possible future recreation, per Zetawoof (near the top of the page). Samuel Conway is a pretty good model of the sort of thing that ''would'' hold up, but as it stands 2's article is not enough. |Verifiability is a tough policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), but |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think it's right that there's some sort of bar to clear. Also, as pointed out by a couple of other editors above, the fact that a number of other people who don't meet the verifiability standards have articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they ''should'' have them; it just means nobody's got around to nominating them for deletion! The production of a couple of mainstream news articles discussing 2 more than very fleetingly would change things quite a bit and would probably lead me to vote keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: there are no independent sources which allows the article, in this condition, to satisfy  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BIO)