Deletion of Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. Fails . This is a very ordinary individual. His career in the USAF is the equivalent of your every day local lawyer that practiced law within a local community. The only difference is Dickson handled contract law which means he probably saw big cases but it wasn't like people flocked to him ala Perry Mason
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: The subject fails  and , and, with all due respect to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I can understand the puffery concerns and while it definitely meets the |General Notability Guidelines it is "on the border" where I could understand an argument against it (the GNG gives a presumption of notability not a guarantee). That said it is very well referenced and I'm comfortable with it being on the project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Retired soldier who lost a few local elections.  does not apply (if it is met, notability is ''presumed'', not ''established'') because none of the claims that are backed by sources lift the subject over the notability threshold
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Seeing how the individual's  standing has been debunked, as previouisly mentioned, individual presently fails  & 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: The person fails the  notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish , but a careful reading shows it is a  for non-notable community service
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:MASK)

Comment: despite the initially impressive look of this article, on closer inspection it appears to fail our notability guidelines. He's only locally 'notable', and there's nothing in the sources provided which indicates he's received the level of significant long-term coverage to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Satisfies , subject ''|"has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"''. In addition, Wikipedia:NOTCLEANUP|AFD is not for cleanup. Not sure why the nominator has not at the very least even ''attempted'' to discuss concerns on the talk page, where I would have happily done my best to address them. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOTE)

Comment: per nom and per Glenfarclas - despite the article's size and number of references Mr Dickson doesn't appear to meet . I note in particular that the references are to local newspapers and generally aren't about Mr Dickson in particular
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Clearly fails  and  by a country mile
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: fails  and  and OTNEWS. It's all |puffery. The guy has some mentions in local coverage relating to purely mundane news about school board management and what not. It is not significant coverage about the person. ETA: Also, why was the actual second nomination and discussion deleted and not mentioned at all in this third one?--Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:PUFF)

Comment: he has some notability, and I admit there is some coverage around, but basically, he doesn't quite meet , and definitely fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)