Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Murdock
Understanding and following the instructions at  does not prevent anyone from offering their own interpretation of guideline and spousing a delete... it's just that a closer will weigh policy and guideline based arguments. 14 people can state "delete" and only one or two a "keep", and still have a closer evaluate a topic based upon policy and guideline and come up with a '''keep'''. AFD is |not as head count.  Guideline tells us |"a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and yes, also states |"if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  Expanding, '''1)''' "substantial" is not the same as |"significant" coverage and '''2)''' "may not" does not mean the same as "is not".  Read . We should not paint all of a newcomer's contributions as automatically bad simply because that person lacks clue. In expanding my own expanded searches, I have found multiple independent sources discussing this topic directly and in detail... NOT trivial.  is met.  is met.  is met through . '''THAT''' is what a closer will consider... not a weight of numbers. And toward the nomination's  argument, while it tends to instill an instant negativity toward a topic, essays are '''not''' #REASON|valid deletion rationales
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 05:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:MAJORITY||WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ADHOM||WP:NRVE||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:BASIC||WP:VANISPAM||WP:DEL (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)