Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Katz
Notability is clear, cut and dry, obvious, and settled, with passes of both #C1 and #C5. I can only imagine that all of the  comments above are either completely unfamiliar with  and with academic deletion cases, or are letting their opinions be biased by the paid editing issue rather than viewing notability objectively as a separate issue. As for the paid editing: it's a legitimate reason for calling an AfD in spite of clear notability, and if the paid-editing version were still the version we were debating I'd agree that  is appropriate. But I think subsequent edits have removed that issue to the point where we can debate the article on the basis of notability alone
— User:David, 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE||WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Notability)