Deletion of Fraser P. Seitel

Comment: I was contemplating nominating this for deletion myself, but CorporateM (who by the way is a subject-matter expert) got there before me. I originally became aware of this article when I combed out a strange bit of promotion from David Rockefellerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Rockefeller&diff=580639669&oldid=580240868, which indicated that either the article subject or someone closely associated was spamming the project. Article history indicates that it has been beset by puffery and COI editing for years, and I'm surprised it has lasted this long. Fails , as media appearances and textbook authorship do not rise to the level of notability. He is in the media representing this guy or that, but so do thousands of other PR people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'm here by way of Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but I think for his level of engagement with academia (adjunct who mostly does other stuff)  is more relevant than . But there are no in-depth reliable sources independent of the subject that would make a case for GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: Not sure this meets the criteria outlined in , but it does have scant sources that makes one believe there might be some notability. i do agree with one of the above editors that simply being a mouthpiece for others does not make you a good subject for inclusion. So delete or keep I am not going to jump up and down about with this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: the ''Times'' article is about Howard J. Rubenstein, and |only gives a single passing mention, one clause of one sentence of an article.  This is s textbook case of failing  if I ever saw one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:42)