Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kerth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kerth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He seemed to have been somewhat well known locally but my searches found nothing convincingly good (particularly better coverage about him, some of these links are passing mentions aside from this, this, this, this and this. This has not changed much since starting in November 2005 and although there is no target, I thought of mentioning him elsewhere but there's simply not much weight. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His Post-Dispatch obituary [1] and follow-up articles about him [2][3] are substantial coverage that make clear he was considered an important and influential figure in St. Louis. Reasonable editors could differ on whether a local figure like this is sufficiently notable, in Wikipedia terms, to warrant an article; on balance I don't find compelling reasons to exclude him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm on the other side of the line than Arxiloxos. Do not feel the sources meet the notability criteria. The local coverage is sparse for someone to be considered notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's borderline, but I think he meets minimum criteria for notability. A brief trawl through Google turned up several sources which could be used to flesh out the article.--Aervanath (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.