Deletion of Simon Pulsifer (2nd nomination)

Comment: Passed  and .  Yeah, he is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: surprisingly. It does not matter if we think he deserves the fame, but he did receive significant in-depth and detailed coverage in conventional newsmedia. Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: No new reason has been presented for why the subject is not notable, in spite of two previous AFDs. The sources on the person indicate that he does pass  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: as passing  and  - it's a little bit creepy, but he has been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, third party sources, notably http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570732,00.html Time Magazine and smaller mentions in http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-27-wikipedians_x.htm?csp=N009 USA Today and... urm... the Ottawa Citizen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)