Deletion of Charles Davi

Comment: doesn't seem to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Ordinarily (in the context of  or , for example), I would be and have been suspicious of using citations to establish notability. The most directly-applicable notability guideline here appears to be , however, and its criterion 3 does the job: "web-specific content is deemed notable ... if the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster...." The Financial Times and The Economist are such media (although Megan's blog is not, since she is not independent of Davi: they both work for the Atlantic), and the article offers citations to Davi's work by them. Not every link by such a publisher to a story will constitute "distribution" of the content, but the examples tendered evince clear distributive intent, and that gets Davi across the applicable notability threshold - if only by a whisker. Lastly,  can amplify other concerns and problems, and will tilt the balance, but it is ''not'' an independent basis for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion;  ("COI editing is ''strongly discouraged''" - but ''not'' forbidden). - Simon Dodd
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG||WP:WEB||WP:COI||WP:COI)