Deletion of Scott Hanselman (2nd nomination)

Comment: The creator of the article (on July1) said he had retrieved an article on June 14 (about tech gurus cooking or something) which is now a deadlink. An article does not have to be online to support notability, it just has to have appeared at some time. If someone saved a copy of the article offline, or could access it in a library, he could provide some information here about the depth of coverage. The deadlink was a press release about a free downloadable cookbook with recipes by many people who work for Microsoft. The press release can be seen http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/idUS183260+06-Jun-2011+BW20110606 here from Reuters. It in no way contributes to notability by Wikipedia standards.  As it stands, we have some quotes from Hanselman which the nominator says are not really coverage of him, as well as what I consider to be one instance of significant coverage in the NY Times. The AFD nominator is incorrect in asserting that coverage in the NY Times of his health, his family, and his travel habits in the NY Times is not evidence of notability, which he seems to feel must be coverage of his "work or achievements."  does not limit notability to someone's "work or achievements." Wikipedia lists "noted" people, not just meritorious and praiseworthy people who have accomplished great things.  I agree that the NY Times article's coverage of his travel habits would be an odd basis for a bio without him being notable for something else, but it helps establish notability. If some of the many articles which quote  him as a tech guru say things like "he is prominent" or "the noted tech guru" that would help to establish notability as well. Determining that will require plowing through some of them. Note: The result of the last AFD was "Delete." The article was in fact deleted, then a new slightly different article was created
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: In my mind, the subject does not at all meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia.  He is mentioned in the NY Times article, but only as an example of someone who works from home.  This sort of mention is very common and the article is not about Hanselman at all and therefore he, himself, has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: See . An article does not have to be exclusively or principally about someone. He receives several sentences of coverage specifically about him. The dismissal that such coverage is "common" just means that a number of people get significant coverage. So what
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)