Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Hunter Johnson (3rd nomination)
We do not automatically keep BLPs that are unsourced or poorly sourced to blogs and random websites that fail . Per  (the very first sentence on the page: '''Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. '''. I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios. I did look for real sources, there aren't any. The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources. The subject of this article fails  at it's very basic level and I've yet to see any argument that it does not. Notability isn't a given, and it can't be established by . EDIT: Also, I respectfully ask that you refrain from making personal statements about me, os trying to cast a pall on my motives. Yes, I believe the article should be deleted as it does not conform to policy. There's nothing wrong with that so I'm not sure why you would attach negative connotations to it. I have no personal animosity and my rationale is based on very objective language
— User:The, 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:N||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)