Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias
I'll do my best to make one last argument for notability in this case. The argument that I haven't articulated well is that the sum is often greater than the parts.  In this case, we have a number of major news media sources that have requested his comments on are variety of political and legal issues.  I don't know about everyone else, but I don't have MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, Forbes, etc. calling me up to ask my opinion on such issues. So, why Nick?  Because he is notable and I'm not.  Is this argument based on policy?  Indeed it is. In  we have ''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''. And this is what we have, multiple reliable secondary sources.  The coverage in these sources is not trivial because all of these sources are requesting his views on the topics of the articles.  None of sources go into substantial depth but taken as a whole, they provide his political and legal views for which he is notable
— User:I, 07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BASIC (Wikipedia:Notability)