Deletion of Romie Tager

Comment: Easily meets  "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". BLP1E is intended to apply only to people who have received coverage for a single event, who are likely to remain low-profile, and the individual's role in that event was either not substantial or not well documented. There is coverage of Tager in RSs going back to 2008/09, I don't think he could be called low profile, and I don't think his activities in various contexts could be called unsubstantial or poorly documented
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Nothing notable for an attorney.  Appears to be trying to claim  | inherited notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: The subject passes  by dint of the breadth of coverage, rather than its depth, "''If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability''".  As the subject is notable for a variety of reasons including their status as a Queen's Counsel; high profile cases and clients; philanthropy; political donations and connections; tax affairs; &c. then  does not apply.  The article seems reasonably comparable with that about the sister - another distinguished professional - and compares well with the page about Tim Owen (barrister)|another QC which I sampled and which has been scrutinised and challenged but which is still here.  This indicates that, as with footballers and sportmen, we don't set the bar very high here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BLP1E)