Deletion of David Chesnoff

Comment: This is a truly horrible article as it stands and editors could be forgiven the impulse to send it to the dross pile for that alone, but the individual does merit further inspection. Upon review of the adduced sources, however, I feel that this is a clear case of . I cannot see what he has done himself to pass our notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I agree with you very strongly, in terms of keeping the page, and I also think the nomination and comments to delete were a bit hasty and do not address or take into account the huge volume of sources here.  And yes, that irritated me when I saw t.  But I want to encourage you to keep the discussion constructive.  Comments like "I don't have time to respond" can come across as dismissive to other editors.  If you edit wikipedia, other editors ''will'' waste your time--that's the nature of the beast.  99% of the time, they are not doing it intentionally and it doesn't have anything to do with you.  ssume good faith is a good guide.  This is important, because we are all sloppy at times, I certainly have made my share of bad or misguided edits or recommendations
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)