Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein (2nd nomination)
First, let me clarify that I am familiar with the article creator's history of puppetry, and that they were clearly trying to use wikipedia to promote some entities and disparage others.  That being said, I don't see how we can possibly argue that, having met  (for me, the ''Bloomberg'' article plus the ''Commercial Observer'' slide meet that requirement, with the rest being less "in depth" but in total being enough), the subject isn't notable in a Wikipedia sense.  If the subject were completely run-of-the-mill, they wouldn't be discussed in detail in ''Bloomberg'' or asked their opinion in ''New York magazine''. This isn't a Who's Who listing, it's a biographical description of a New York lawyer who appears to be more notable than the typical New York lawyer.  And this is certainly not a genealogical entry--significant descriptions of multiple aspects of his life are included, not just simple familial records. So, even though I would not be surprised if this article was created as part of a more general PR campaign on behalf of the subject, that doesn't automatically render the subject non-notable
— User:Qwyrxian, 09:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)