Deletion of Eric Zaccar

Comment: ndash; Sorry, Robroams, but this is not an election, so there is '''no "voting"''' (see ''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD|How to discuss an AfD'') … decisions are reached by onsensus|consensus, and as you can see, the community is quick to recognize |sockpuppets of |blocked users … besides, "''buzz''" is no substitute for "''significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject''" … just where are these alleged articles about him in ''New York Post'' and ''Newsday''? We cannot just take your word that he "is rather well known, and well regarded" … it's all about |verifiability, particularly when it comes to |biographies of living persons. &mdash; Special:Contributions/141.156.161.245|141.156.161.245
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:SOCK||WP:BLOCK||WP:V||WP:BLP)

Comment: as not notable. If it mattered, it would be a Strong Delete because (1) none of the editors !voting keep have added a single solid reference to the article, (2) the editor who added the {{tlx|rescue}} tag added nothing else to the article, and (3) the sheer vitriol and WP rule breaking by the |SPA's above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: ndash; I have Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar|started a list of the |sock/meatpuppets who have "voted" here … if only they had devoted as much energy to ''improving'' the article under discussion. &mdash; Special:Contributions/141.156.161.245|141.156.161.245
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: ndash; I was going to stick a {{tl|PROD}} on this piece of |vanispamcruftisement after lipstick on a pig|putting some lipstick on it, but this works, too … there may be ''beau coup'' "references", but they don't amount to "significant coverage" as defined by . &mdash; Special:Contributions/141.156.161.245|141.156.161.245
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA||WP:N)

Comment: this nomination effectively boils down to whether the one relevent |reliable source that can be found (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/02/nyregion/about-new-york-taking-aim-at-bureaucracy-in-two-acts.html) is enough to confer |notability on to the subject. My opinion is that whilst one source can sometimes be enough to meet the notability threshold - whether in itslef or as confirmation of some other criteria - this is not one of those cases. In this case the source is a newspaper and is from the local news section of the newspaper; the complete lack of coverage apart from this source (and the content of the source itself) to me indicates passing local coverage - even if the locality is one of the greatest cities in the world - which does not normally establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NN)