Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony J. Motley (2nd nomination)
unless the article sees significant improvement. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article, but the sources proffered so far in this discussion just make him a . Sure, it's possible that there might be more meat here, but that needs to be shown and not merely speculated about before it would actually change anything. We need more than just two pieces of local coverage to deem a person as clearing  in ''lieu'' of having to clear a subject-specific inclusion standard, because GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that reaches two" — it does also consider factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't ''about him'', the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what he's getting covered ''for''. As I've often pointed out, if two pieces of local coverage were all it took to deem a person "notable just because media coverage exists" and thereby ''exempt'' them from having to be notable for any specific ''reason'', then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into the local media several years ago for finding a pig in her yard
— User:Bearcat, 15:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)