Deletion of Gabriel Murphy (3rd nomination)

Comment: The first two references (http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 & http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage) are independent secondary sources providing substantial coverage of the subject.  This article clearly meets Wikipedia:notability.  Internet traffic is definitely irrelevant to our article inclusion criteria.  Can the nominator please be reminded that “vanity” is a needlessly insulting term, frequently constitutes |newbie biting, and we have agreed to avoid its use, and in any case, it is not a deletion criterion.  If necessary, advise contributors to read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:COI)

Comment: notability is borderline at most, there does seem to be  and in truth, the article is too long, noting several non-notable business activities and given the sourced coverage on this person, topic falls somewhat short of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:BIO)

Comment: This is mostly a resume. Much of the text is . For instance, each subheading for the companies list begin with the person, but quickly diverge into company information. There is some sense of notability, but this article in the current state isn't it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I have voted on this discussion in previous AdFs as I know of this individual.  I believe this article clearly meets the |notability standard with the various references, which are significant and reliable (no one has questioned this) and they are independent of the subject (no one has questioned this either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This article clearly meets  and is well referenced. “Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources” per .  The first two references (http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 & http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage) are independent secondary sources providing substantial coverage of the subject.  Enough said
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: firstly, disappointed that such a recent debate has been brought so quickly to the forum for re-debate, not just once but thrice: surely a month would be a good gap between debates over a few days? However, I think the debate here rests on what is notability. Looking at  and the references used in the current version, I think he doesn't presently make the required criteria - close, but not quite.  asks for both significant secondary sources, and significant and notable contribution - if the criteria were defined in Murphy's case as "Kansas" than yes, he would pass . But it doesn't, and I read the required level of sources as national or at least outside of state, as opposed to just/mainly state. I also think the current version is wholly over written and has too much coverage of (in three years times) wholly insignificant details - the property piece being a great example: tends to suggest addition of details to make sure the article is kept, over the creation of an encyclopaedic entry. Rgds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)