Deletion of Max Karson

Comment: Notability is permanent, not temporary. As I said in my previous comment, this person meets the notability criteria set out in . I'd also highlight that the references goes back to 2002
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Yes, his case was mentioned in his local Colorado newspaper. This does ''not'' mean he passes . Does everyone mentioned in every issue of last week's Rocky Mountain News get an article here? No. Being kicked out of school for being disruptive is hardly notable, even in the context of the Virginia Tech massacre
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: as per .  Coverage by multiple reliable independent sources has been clearly established here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: obviously. The article is well sourced and meets  many times over. There's really no question about this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The notability of this subject is so marginal as to border on a case of briefly-compromised anonymity.  I support the call for deletion as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Either we follow policy or we don't. Clearly meets  and . Just because articles were written recently doesn't mean they can't be cited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: Let's not allow our vision to be fogged by |recentism. This character is a non-notable publicity seeker of no interest or merit. His fifteen minutes is just about up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: This article meets the  standards and is in line with the 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:A)

Comment: per . This person "has been the subject of multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)