Deletion of John H. Stamler (2nd nomination)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much better than this. Nothing stated here is an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to have an article just because he existed, but the sourcing is not strong enough to get him over  — three of the seven sources aren't doing anything at all, because one is a |primary source, one just glancingly verifies the existence of a scholarship that was named after him (which is not a notability clincher) while containing no content about him, and one verifies an entirely tangential fact about his widow rather than being about him. And while the other four are better, they aren't convincingly adding up to ''enough'' coverage to confer a "notable because media coverage exists" pass — they all represent the ''local'' level of coverage that any county prsecutor in any county would simply be ''expected'' to have in the local media, and the fact that a person's ''local'' media market happens to have ''The New York Times'' in it does not reify into an instant notability-clincher in and of itself either. Given the length of time he held the position, it's plausible that enough coverage to get him over GNG might exist if somebody digs deeper than this — but improved coverage would have to be ''shown'' to exist, not just theorized as possible, before it changes the notability equation, and the volume of coverage shown right now is not enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)

Comment: Obits in major newspapers (like the East Coast Edition of the New York Times,) are a standard indication of notability at Wikipedia.  The fact is that SIGCOV of his work as prosecutor is available in news archives, even though  CRIME stories like this one about Rolando Marcelo, a recent Yale grad, who lost his job, picked up a knife, and: (Block Party Ends With Slaying of 4: FINAL Edition San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext); 30 May 1989: A4.; Suspect Fights With Guards, AP. New York Times, 03 June 1989: 1.30.) would probably have an article is it  happened now. But Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.  Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: There was basically a consensus to delete the first time (especially if you discount the wikilawyering and  arguments). There is nothing particularly notable about his career. And the resurrection of the New York Times obit = automatic notability argument is really aggravating. That has been shot down as a claim to notability in so many other deletion discussions. The second New York Times article doesn't really help much, it is about a new police academy that just happens to be named after him. Having a building named after you is not auto-notability either (especially since that building would not meet notability standards for its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: I don't really see significant coverage of the subject except in the Asbury Park obituary. The NYT obit is only a couple paragraphs long. In any case, the legal notability is simply policy: the article must nevertheless pass . Happy to revise my vote if better sourcing is found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)