Deletion of Wayne Ray (2nd nomination)

Comment: Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish sufficient notability under  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: based on  my  own reading  of the article and  checking on, and for sources. Fails . I  have  no  idea what  the  kerfuffle is at  ''Wikipediocracy'',  I've never  been there and I'm not likely to go there to find out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Nothing that addresses  notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per  (and yes, I am aware of the hoo-ha over this on another website). BTW, would anyone care to comment Talk:Scouts_Canada#The_canoe_photo.2C_taken_by_child_pornographer|here, which also involves Wayne Ray
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Self-published sources are okay to a limited extent by a person in the article about that person even though ideally we should rely predominantly on secondary sources independent of the article subject. But for determining notability per |notability standards on Wikipedia, once we exclude the primary sources, there is not enough significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article subject, so the article should be deleted. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: As written, this is based entirely on |primary sources and a |blog, with no indication shown of |reliable source coverage — so I ran a ProQuest search, and found ''nothing'' by which the sourcing could be improved at all. The hits that did exist pertained entirely to a former mayor of North Battleford, Saskatchewan and/or an American medical professor, with literally just ''one'' hit for ''this'' Wayne Ray and even then not in a context that could confer notability — it simply mentions his name in conjunction with a military history website. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of RS coverage which verifies an  pass, but nothing like that is claimed or sourced here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLOGS||WP:RS||WP:NAUTHOR)