Deletion of Dan Fredinburg

Comment: There's enough coverage of the person before his death to pass . The argument of "what about the other 2000+ victims" is redundant. Each of them ''may'' be notable in their own right. It would be a case-by-case basis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Drummerdog and others. This encyclopedia is |not made of paper, and there has certainly been widespread coverage of this man
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: A lot of people seem to be forgetting that , ,  all still say "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."&#8213;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:PEOPLE)

Comment: Both his work at Google and other ventures merit some degree of notability and recognition - his 2013 interview with ''Time'' magazine (taken '''''before''''' the disastrous accident) is evidence of that. He is internationally known for , but this should not be used to take away the subject's prior notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: He wasn't notable in life, and his death was 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Per . The substance of the article hasn't changed since it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Fredinburg&oldid=659292180 was a stub so that doesn't negate those !votes. The article has |more filler now certainly, but still has the same lack of relevant material and notability necessary to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:PSEUDO)