Deletion of Justin Murdock

Comment: I'll take a stab at this one.  also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  I would argue that this subject's coverage counts as trivial.  A matter of opinion, I know, but I see no conflict between following  and recommending a '''delete''' for this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC)

Comment: I agree that if John Hinckley were to request deletion he would be turned down, but this guy's notability is marginal at best, and I think it is a case where  applies: "Discussions concerning |biographical articles of relatively unknown, |non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, ''may'' be closed as delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:BIODELETE||WP:BLP||WP:NPF)

Comment: Can anyone looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Murdock#References well-sourced article, explain how  is somehow not met? (IE: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.")   If  is met, then issues with creator are put aside and we look to , which encourages improvement through regular editing... and not deletion of arguably notable topics
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:HANDLE)

Comment: I did my homework before taking this stance.  is met. The suggested #G10 describes speedy criteria of "attack pages" which "may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced."  The article presents its information neutrally and is well-sourced. OTRS is well and good, but if John Hinckley were to request through OTRS that the page about him be deleted because it described negative aspects of his life, we'd look to coverage and respectfully decline that request. We need to be just as careful in deleting as we are in allowing topics, and apply policy reasonably and evenly.  Any G10 should be declined, as the properly-sourced article is not libelous (information is available outside of Wikipedia in multiple reliable sources), nor does it make legal threats, nor does it present information intended only to harass or intimidate a person (though the subject himself may not like his life being written of within these pages), nor is it "entirely negative in tone and unsourced".  Sorry Hinckley. Sorry Murdock.  We only neutrally report within these pages that which is covered in more detail elsewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:CSD)

Comment: Not only fails , but it looks like it is an elaborate attack page. We also received a request to delete the article via ticket:2013111310000475|OTRS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I have no "passion" for keeping or deleting this new article, but simply wish that |policy and |guideline be applied evenly and without |animus toward its newbie author or his errors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE||WP:BASIC||WP:ADHOM)

Comment: Understanding and following the instructions at  does not prevent anyone from offering their own interpretation of guideline and spousing a delete... it's just that a closer will weigh policy and guideline based arguments. 14 people can state "delete" and only one or two a "keep", and still have a closer evaluate a topic based upon policy and guideline and come up with a '''keep'''. AFD is |not as head count.  Guideline tells us |"a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and yes, also states |"if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  Expanding, '''1)''' "substantial" is not the same as |"significant" coverage and '''2)''' "may not" does not mean the same as "is not".  Read . We should not paint all of a newcomer's contributions as automatically bad simply because that person lacks clue. In expanding my own expanded searches, I have found multiple independent sources discussing this topic directly and in detail... NOT trivial.  is met.  is met.  is met through . '''THAT''' is what a closer will consider... not a weight of numbers. And toward the nomination's  argument, while it tends to instill an instant negativity toward a topic, essays are '''not''' #REASON|valid deletion rationales
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:MAJORITY||WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ADHOM||WP:NRVE||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:BASIC||WP:VANISPAM||WP:DEL)