Deletion of Michael Lederer

Comment: interesting life, perhaps, but no evidence that he passes our threshold of notability in any field. |If his plays do well, then perhaps we will change our minds; |there is no deadline here, and we have no obligation whatsoever to preserve this article so that he will have more publicity ''"one month before his play is staged "''. Many of the keep arguments made boil down to his association with notable topics; but as we must constantly emphasize, |notability is neither |contagious nor |inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:CRYSTAL||:WP:NODEADLINE||:WP:BIO||:WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS||:WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: No substantial coverage in , plenty for the scientist, an athlete, a property developer of the same name. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Let me disclose that I wrote the original article re: Michael Lederer.  I did not base his inclusion in Wikipedia on any one factor among those enumerated above by JohninDC.  I agree with him that any one of those taken alone may not merit inclusion under notability requirements as set forth in otability (people).  But taken together, the aggregate forms a body of recognized work that is of sufficient interest to merit inclusion.  Please consider
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Done the same as Andrew and came up  with  nothing. The article fails already  on  whether the subject  is well known or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)