Deletion of Erich Reimer (2nd nomination)

Comment: Apparently I approved this at AfC but I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time. Only a handful of those sources where he has received significant coverage are RS. The status of The Blaze is not really open for debate here as it's already been determined by consensus not to be a RS. Had I to review this over again I probably would neither have approved it nor rejected it but have left it for someone else to look at. The sources unambiguously establish that this person is a real, living human but mere proof of existence is not sufficient for a WP article. Further, a person can appear on 1,000 episodes of ''CNN Morning Express'' and ''Fox & Friends'' and that doesn't establish notability if they're only there commenting on things, versus being the subject of commentary. And campus newspapers may be fine to source facts, but certainly not to establish notability. That said, the ''Fairfax County Times'' is a good source, but the ''Washington Examiner'' is not because it covers him within the context of a political campaign which is addressed in . It is very much on the edge but I'm leaning - though just barely - to weak delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Person has been in media and entertainment/acting with meaningful audience and roles, per . Also seemingly significant third-party media reporting on person per  and , with some national reliable sources “focused” on person rather than just as part of a broader narrative (such as POLITICO). Potential too under olitician (local). Article was approved through  review process (by editor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:P||WP:AFC)

Comment: I am with {{u|Chetsford}} on this one. As far as his appearances and his journalism, the entire article is sourced to . I would say http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/one-local-millenial-s-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/article_cc892e66-94a7-11e6-9206-d73e4481b525.html this is a good source but its only one and local. I would vote for the Blaze being reliable (I don't agree with all their views, but they do employ fact checkers - no matter how bad they may be), but consensus is against me so it wouldn't count. In the end, this is original research without significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Non-notable subject. |Fails , as well as the additional criteria of ,  (self-published book), and  (school and college don't count nor |future aspirations. There is weak support under  (https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2018/02/13/stock-market-economic-and-partisan-political-opportunity/332730002/ political and financial commentator/writer) but pretty much is the extent of actual notability claims, which I don't see as enough Wikipedia:SIGCOV|significant coverage and I am not sure where the "actor" credentials come from, but edges me past "weak delete" to "delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FAILN||WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:ENTERTAINER)