Deletion of Adam Storch

Comment: Serving on the SEC could certainly count as a notability claim if he could be referenced over  for it, but it is not an "inherent" notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because his role is technically verifiable. Nominator is correct, however, that the sources here are not adequate to get him over GNG: two of the four are the SEC's own self-published press releases; the Bloomberg piece reads like a thinly veiled rewrite of the press release rather than anything that resembles a journalist actually talking to anybody personally, and the Business Insider piece is just a snarky blurb about their efforts to find a photo of him — any piece that contains the all-caps phrase "A VAMPIRE SQUID IS RUNNING THE SEC" is not substantive enough to take seriously as a notability-making source. If somebody could do a lot better than this, then things might be different — but this, as written, is not even close to enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: two press releases and two gossipy "who's moving on" articles are not , and his position is not high up enough to warrant automatic inclusion per . Sorry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:POLOUTCOMES)