Deletion of Dan Weinstein (business executive)

Comment: In all the sources, I can't find one where he is dedicated full paragraph to discuss his life and what he's up to. Lacks significant coverage fails  and the sources are questionable, none of them is established reputable media house or website. ''&thinsp;&mdash;''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Weinstein himself is not given enough in-depth coverage by the article's sources. Per , Weinstein is not notable solely for the sake of being connected to notable figures
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per nom and  and lacks significant coverage clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per , written in contemporary marketing speak. The author is actually quite good at writing a marketing bio that slips through our G11 criteria because it isn't written in 1960s adspeak (which is what we all but require for that.) This is the perfect example of why deletion based on NOTSPAM at AfDs is necessary: anyone with any background in current marketing practices could spot the techniques used here. This is clearly spam being used to promote the subject for pay. The question of notability is not even relevant, nor is the disclosure in compliance with the terms of use: the TOU is not a license to ignore local policies. It is the bare minimum to be able to click the save button, just as not uploading copyright violations is. After they have been met, we can begin assess based on local policy. Unfortunately, this fails our local policy on promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSPAM)