Deletion of Andrew Kirtzman

Comment: First of all, the three NYT articles already used are enough for Kirtzman to pass GNG.  Hence the nomination is flawed.  Furthermore, Kirtzman passes  on the basis of his book about Bernie Madoff, which was pretty widely reviewed when it came out.  Here are a few instances
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: IP user, you have not "proved" anything.  You can't just throw half-formed references into the ring and expect everyone else to track those down and evaluate them for you.  If you want to make an argument here, you have to actually make it and support it.  Because I happen to have access to Lexis-Nexis, though, I did look for these reviews.  Oddly enough, the most comprehensive news database in the world did not have full text for some of these.  The ones it did have (e.g., the ''Evening Standard'', the ''New York Post'') were not actually significantly about Kirtzman or his book, mentioning him only in passing or merely quoting him about Madoff.  Merely having reviews has little bearing on  anyway, which asks if the person {{tq|...has created ...a significant or well-known work...}}  To that end, I note that https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-scandal-yawn-madoff-books-a-bust/ this article states that Kirtzman's book sold all of 3,000 copies in the first month after its release. That is not a significant or well-known work.  This person fails the tests of  as well; where the coverage about him has been significant, it has not been independent and where the coverage has been independent it has not been significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a direct conflict of interest can do better than this. For the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, notability is less a factor of what an article ''says'' than of how well the article |reliably sources what it says, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all — half of the footnotes are to |primary sources that cannot support notability (books sourced to their own publication details rather than to reliable source coverage ''about'' them, building sourced to photograph of building, etc.), while the sources that do represent media coverage are almost all just glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. The only source here that's ''about'' him in any non-trivial way is the wedding announcement, but that represents |routine "coverage" that doesn't actually establish notability either. While he might be eligible to keep an article that was sourced ''properly'', nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to keep him if he's sourced like ''this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE)