Deletion of Meade Emory

Comment: per comments by Sailsbystars, THF and Xxanthippe.  The ''Seattle Times'' piece sure looks like a paid obit which no more represents the views of the ''Times'' than would a paid ad by Microsoft.  It's interesting that Emory wrote a few pieces for the ''New York Times'', but I don't think that's enough for him to be notable per . As far as the obit by Ted Van Dyk, he and Emory seem to be old friends, so it's not surprising that Van Dyk would write an obit, and that also means that Van Dyk is not in a good position to objectively report Emory's significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: GS cites are 33, 18, 16, 6, 2, 2, 2, 1 which is not enough for rof#C1. Does not pass any other categories either. General notability is too slender as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: After all that rewriting, the main source remains a |paid advertisement in the memorials section; the second-most important source is a blog entry.  There'd be nothing but a stub if it was removed as it should.  Even searching the blogs, his death went completely unnoticed by the specialized tax blogs and normal RS.  Doesn't meet  for writing quickly outdated books on specialized legal subjects.  This seems to fall pretty much under  unless somebody finds something I didn't find
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: as rewriter. The nomination is flawed, as is the above. However the article may have started, the subject's main claim to notability is not the scientology matter which is fringe to his biography. It is not his academic status and legal accomplishments either (lawyers, tax advisors and professors are ten a penny, so are local festivals and their board). It is the recognition in reliable sources that he was considered a significant individual in the life of Seattle. Very few people comparatively get an obituary in a mainstream newspaper (''Seattle Times''), that is a good sign his life was noticed by the wider world. Being a lawyer, professor, and tax expert does not get an major paper obituary. Not many get a second obituary authored in http://crosscut.com/2010/10/12/seattle/20247/Meade-Emory,--Seattle-s-Atticus-Finch,--dies-at-79/ these kinds of terms by http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/events.taf?function=show&cat=allconf&EventID=otherevent_78&SPID=798&level1=speakers&level2=bio this kind of http://thehill.com/capital-living/bookshelf/20762-the-ultimate-political-insiders-memoir individual. The conclusion is that he was noticed for real by the wider world, and he gained significant attention in multiple reliable sources independent of him as a result of this - classic 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I looked through the article and sources without looking at the ongoing scientology-related drama.  Definitely does not pass .  For criterion 7, the subject was quoted a decent number of times in newspapers, but not that much considering a career spanning 30 years.  With respect to the other criteria, this article falls far short.  The relevant notability guideline is then , which I think the article fails.  Obit in the Seattle Times is good, but it looks to be of the paid variety, so not so good. crosscut.com is an interesting source that is right on the border between personal blog (not RS) and newsblog (is RS).  Given the lack of clearly reliable sources about the article subject, I cannot support a keep at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)