Deletion of David Marchick

Comment: as failing  due to insufficient in depth coverage in independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Searching on this subject and then peeling back many  and  left me with very little indicating this subject might approach . And while quite impressive, he fails . I agree with the very detailed nomination's' rationale that the subject also fails various alternative criteria. I'm also confident that if we actually had a , this subject would fail that as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:BLPSPS||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:NJOURNALIST)

Comment: Coverage of him has been  announcements about hirings, minor quotations in articles and his wedding announcement. These must not be considered in a notability discussion. A search turned up nothing beyond that. I find no significant coverage of the man himself. Hence it fails the  requirements and other more specific criteria for authors already discussed above. Some people arguing keep say that his status as an executive at Carlyle Group confers notability upon him; yet notability cannot be inherited from an organization. See . Therefore this argument fails. His book has not been widely reviewed or taken notice of. He may have testified before the Senate, but I find no secondary reports on the testimony
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:GNG||WP:ORGIN)

Comment: Looks like nom is stuck on the "is he an author," "is he a diplomat" questions. Notability is simply non-trivial (not necessarily in-depth) coverage in multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources (see ), with sources sufficient to provide enough material for a start-class article. Marchick meets that, and that is all that is relevant to this Afd. There isn't a need for in-depth coverage in a single place; multiple references which together provide enough material is good. In this case that does exist
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I oppose relisting. The thread has already run for 12 days, which practically means it has been relisted once. There is sufficient discussion, and sufficient information unearthed, to decide for good. Deletion is not necessarily based on consensus, it is based on policy and guidelines. One doesn't relist just because there was a lengthy discussion; an Afd tag has real consequences: it scares editors off the page (why put in what could vanish tomorrow), and it leaves readers with a vague idea there is something not fine with the subject. There isn't anything stuck here, since we don't need a consensus to decide an Afd. Here are the sources collected in one place: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TTUN4RHlKVS1MeG8 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XLV, 2007, pp. 1042–44, an in-depth review of his book, http://www.cfr.org/business-and-foreign-policy/foreign-investment-national-security/p11146 here, http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/archive/2009_CFIUS_CIP_Update.pdf Journal of Homeland Security, citation to book,  http://books.google.com/books?id=HjO1mkyoMagC&pg=PA101 (Palgrave MacMillan), http://books.google.com/books?id=0kmvyB8PuFUC&pg=PA267 (W.W. Norton), http://books.google.com/books?id=vqjWWs9FDFwC (Kluwer Law: pages 51, 168, 169), http://books.google.com/books?id=-B_7n0jOJggC&pg=PA83 (Edward Elgar: page 57 in biblio and a bunch of other pages, check with a search), http://books.google.com/books?id=4tHEFuaKaCAC (Peterson Institute for International Economics, pages 192, 200, 202), http://books.google.com/books?id=mhcWghgCx2kC (Edward Elgar), http://books.google.com/books?id=z3fGsUG97AoC&pg=PT254 (Yale University Press), http://books.google.com/books?id=k-GPxGMy8qMC&pg=PA146 (Cengage learning—a textbook in its 13th edition, clearly instructors are using it to teach),  http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/archive/2009_CFIUS_CIP_Update.pdf Washington Post and Financial times (pay link), http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/17/style/weddings-pamela-kurland-david-marchick.html New York Times Style section, book as the course material for a law course at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/graduate-programs/current-students/upload/National-Security-Law-and-the-Private-Sector-Fagan-and-Plotkin.docx Georgetown University. That coverage, largely non-trivial (a footnote is not trivial since it is a citation and one should look at the cited material to see the coverage), meets , which asks for reliable, third-party, non-trivial coverage, and nothing else. Relisting is when sufficient discussion has not occurred, not when there is lack of consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)