Deletion of Gregory Creswell

Comment: Tip for others checking this AFD: There are 60-odd links in the reflist, but you can save yourself half the work by skipping URLs to government sites and Libertarian sites. Gross case of junk-source ombardment. Fails  and standard . I've spent an unreasonable amount of time reviewing the mountain of sources. The pile of Libertarian-party sources are not independent, and thus carry exactly zero weight for Notability. (The award from the Libertarian party to their own candidate is worthless for the same reason.) The government sources are worthless because the government must indiscriminately document all candidates. Voterguides from random private groups also offer indiscriminate listings. The many sources that don't even mention him are irrelevant. Sources with bare passing mentions don't help. The election-coverage he did get was was the negligible attention that any hopeless throw-away candidate would get, and that coverage was essentially non-existent outside of some college news production. He has no meaningful notability beyond being a cliche irrelevant-perennial-candidate who never gets more than (approximately) zero percent of the vote. The 'keep' votes above show significant "topic-specific passion", soapboxing, wanting to |right-wrongs, and rants that deletion is censorship. I do not believe they offer an impartial evaluation of the sourcing. I do not believe they are representative of the general community consensus. I humbly suggest that they be weighed accordingly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:NPOL||WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:RGW)

Comment: My goodness, what an unfortunate situation this AfD is. I spent quite a bit of time sorting through the many references proffered here and in the article, all the negative commentary here, and all the rest of it. After that, I must conclude that Creswell does not actually pass  or . He seems like a very interesting individual, though. My evaluation is that the sources can be summarized as 1) |primary sources (interviews are primary sources, as are libertarian party sources, and his own websites), 2) passing mentions, or 3) not mentioning the article subject at all. The government sources are also not comprehensive coverage. Wikipedia articles are summaries of what reliable and independent sources say ''about'' a subject, not what a subject says (or their close associates say) about themselves. If there isn't reliable and comprehensive independent coverage available, then there simply isn't content available to write an ''encyclopedic'' article. What is there now is a summary of what he says about himself, and his political viewpoints and a |synthesis of what primary sources and non-comprehensive coverage says. With respect to the Five Pillars, this article fails both  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SYNTH||WP:5P1||WP:5P2)

Comment: Despite a huge bombardment by COI libertarian editors and a plethora of junk sources designed to overwhelm, this individual is simply not notable. The bad-faith attacks by conflicted editors serves only to justify ignoring their !votes. Creswell completely fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)