Deletion of John Tiedtke (2nd nomination)

Comment: Per my argument above, and an earlier prod (subject fails  as they only have local coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO)

Comment: Any argument invoking local coverage is bunk (it's Orlando, Florida, not Orlando, Oklahoma, and should we disregard ''The New York Times'' coverage of prominent New Yorkers?).   states "{{xt|If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability}}". Coverage in multiple independent sources exist. The essay  discourages the argument that local coverage is a valid reason for deletion.  Note that coverage also exists in a ''Toledo Blade'' obituary https://www.toledoblade.com/news/deaths/2004/12/24/Toledoan-was-supporter-of-arts-museum/stories/200412240042.  The article can and should be improved with a tone more removed from the laudatory nature of some obituaries, but Articles for Deletion is not Articles for Improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ITSLOCAL)

Comment: or '''merge''' into Tiedtke's, per  (part C
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Meets  No compliance with efore.  Nominator chose to disregard available sources.  Referencing can and should be has improved, but the sources exist and are cited.  So this article is not what it was when repeatedly nominated for deletion, and now should be is easily surpasses up to  standard. Clearly an important philanthropist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:B||WP:HEY)