Deletion of Edward E. Kramer

Comment: WP:COI|noting that I have met Kramer, and participated at Dragon*Con on multiple occasions).  In terms of the article, there are plenty of sources affirming notability per .  Yes, some of the information is negative, but per , as long as any negative statements are extremely well-sourced, and the information is provided in a balanced, conservative, and neutral way, it can be included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)

Comment: I think Kramer is notable: the latest versionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_E._Kramer&oldid=439526351 of the article claims and supports this sufficiently for me. However his notability is not such that it would be absurd to delete the article if there were sufficient reason. I have read the request for the article to be deleted and associated discussion. However, http://atlantajewish.com/content/2004/edkramer.html this, cited in the article, makes me wonder whether, at least in 2004, Kramer was willing for the allegations to be publicised so that he could also publicise the mistreatment he alleges. I do not know. The latest allegations section is well-written. It uses WP’s voice to say what little can be said in this way and does not go on with a “he said”, “she said” ramble but draws our attention to relevant external commentary.  Even so, I think this section should be entirely removed. It is too prejudicial. It is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. .  If it remains the article may need full protection but the section cannot be left unchanged for there have been recent developmentshttp://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/court-to-decide-where-1189103.html and the wheels of justice might turn another degree or two. Without the allegations is Kramer notable? Yes, but marginally so. A redirect to Dragon Con could be appropriate but his biographical details would not sit happily there and certainly not the allegations. Perhaps Kramer will become decidedly wiki-notable in ways he would not wish. In that case it would be more dignified to extend an existing article than to drag one up from the abyss
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)