Deletion of Eugene Plotkin

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (|step 3).  I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 26
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: The subject may well pass : the crime was a high-profile one,http://www.cnbc.com/id/29038339/A_Scam_Exposed_Strippers_and_Insider_Trading_Slideshow extensively covered in reliable news sources, and mentions continue to show up from time to time.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22eugene+plotkin%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bt8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&prmd=imvnso&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=HrpKT7L1MoepiQKc9vjaDQ&ved=0CB0QpwUoAA&biw=1680&bih=892  In any event, I can't see any significant NPOV problem with the current version of the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: Smallbones is the primary and only main author of the article, so his argument for a strong keep appears to be self-interested and spurious. At the time the article was nominated for deletion, it had been restored to its original form, so no attempt to "pull wool over the eyes" was made. Plotkin does not have a notable ballroom dancing career, as he is not even listed among leading ballroom dancers (see ballroomdancersinfo.net), nor does he have a notable film career (see imdb.com). The only possible argument for notability relates to the insider trading. However, the insider trading is not even among the top 50 such crimes in terms of monetary gain. While it received news coverage, that news coverage was solely contemporaneous and much of it resulted in reprints of the same story in different sources. As such, it does not pass the litmus test under the vent|well documented historic event guideline. Further, note that the majority of the insider trading section relates to actions not taken by Plotkin specifically, but by his alleged co-conspirator, Pajcin, and other individuals, none of whom have a Wikipedia entry. The focus on users Jackadvisor and Jonathansterling is a transparent attempt by Smallbones to change the subject from the valid concerns which they raise relating to the article. Why does user Smallbones wish to keep this article at all costs? Does he know the subject personally? Another key concern is that the subject of this biography is a living individual who may suffer very real fallout from the information presented in this entry.  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)