Deletion of Andrew K. Ruotolo (2nd nomination)

Comment: Passes , which is good enough for any article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42)

Comment: I agree with Thincat that the three obituaries cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. As  explains: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the |primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." This person does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline, but it's immaterial because he does meet the WP:general notability guideline|general notability guideline. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N)

Comment: Sure he fails  and he fails  too. Quite a loser. But the article cites two obituaries (one sourced to Associated Press), both different, plus another one in the NYT. Substantial and differently written. That's good enough for me. In addition there are several articles (and many more uncited) individually giving less than "significant coverage". The reason  gives for discounting these is that they do not supposedly allow us to write more than " a few sentences". That is clearly wrong in this case and for any article where the brief mentions provide information on different aspects of a topic. So, I'll invoke "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" here – that is not to ignore the rules but it is to abide by the notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:NFOOTY||WP:N)