Deletion of Daniel Terdiman

Comment: I don't think he meets inclusion standards by ''much'', but I'm satisfied that |the work that has been done overcomes my primary objections. There's still obviously some to be done, including pruning some peacock phrasing ("versatile writer" ... "considered to be an expert" citing an article that doesn't ''actually'' call him that), but AFD isn't for editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: I'm not going to vote quite yet until i think about this one, but I want to note that 's mention of the "professor test" (which is included there, not simply in the notability for academics) does not specifically state that the person needs to actually be a professor or academic.  The article in question ''does'' assert that this journalist is an expert in certain fields, which would seem to be close enough to argue for it on this basis.  I also note that the professor test, which merely requires that a person be more published than the "average college professor" is a fairly low bar (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the "average" professor probably publishes zilch, or close to it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: thanks for answering my previous comments;  I'm persuaded by the keep arguments that he meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)