Bio's of people have always been contentious on Wikipedia - especially in the realms of what is or is not notable.
I think the current accepted theory is that you ask the question: if I googled their name could I get all of the information I want from one pre-existing (non WP) link. If the answer is yes then in most cases there is no need for the article.
What if it takes 2 or 3 places to get all the information? Or 300 places that aren't the mainstream media? My problem with the current notability theory is that it isn't flexible enough for what should. For now, deletionists versus inclusionists isn't going to end, but the current notability policy could explicitly allow for the inclusion of articles with no mainstream media sources.
For example, I think every professor that has ever had an article published in Nature should have their own Wikipedia page. More professors than just that, but I don't think there is any argument against a scientist that is extremely respected in his field, even if no one in the mainstream media has decided he is worth mentioning left.
It is bad to depend on the mainstream media for what is notable because Wikipedia is already beyond that. I used the SFGate to establish notability on an article. Techcrunch has a better Alexa rank than the SF Gate, but Techcrunch doesn't count for some reason.
I think the current accepted theory is that you ask the question: if I googled their name could I get all of the information I want from one pre-existing (non WP) link. If the answer is yes then in most cases there is no need for the article.