Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias
I have not yet studied the references that are currently in the article, so I am not !voting for the moment. I would like to point out that much of the contentiousness of this AfD seems to stem from incorrect terminology. For example, the website of the think thank were Dranias works is not something that he "self-published". It is, however, a ''primary'' source that is not ''independent''. As several other people have already noted here, we need ''secondary'' sources AND those sources need to be ''independent'' of the subject. Being a little bit more careful in a BLP AfD might have saved some drama. As for notability, WP uses that in the sense of "having been noted", which needs to be |verifiable through |secondary |reliable sources that are |independent of the subject of the article. Nobody here seems to deny that Dranias is a regular guest on TV shows and panels and such, I would assume that at least some of that has been covered. I agree that the original article, until a few days ago, was horrendously promotional and insufficiently sourced. Normally I would vote "delete" in such a case, because, like DGG said above, it is often easier in cases like this to start from scratch. Despite the hard work of several editors over the past few days, I don't think the article is beyond that "nuke it" stage yet, unfortunately
— User:Randykitty, 18:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:SECONDARY||WP:RS||WP:INDEPENDENT (Wikipedia:Verifiability)