Deletion of David Merkow

Comment: does not meet any of the criteria in #Golf. Coverage appears to be "routine news reporting on things like ... sports" (#NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS||WP:NOT)

Comment: Clearly meets .  is just a guideline to when a subject is likely to meet . One of the sentences in the lead of that guideline makes specific mention that not meeting its criteria does not mean it needs to be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NSPORTS||WP:GNG)

Comment: It seems a bad precedent, a deliberate override of the intent of  to delete an article with 60 sources.  Of the sources I read, they were neither related to the subject, niche specific or trivial.  You can't just take this volume of material and put your . . . but, but . . . opinion as a higher level of judgement.  Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information.  This is legitimate, sourced information.  It is not a vanity article, fraudulent or unsourced and clearly falls within the bounds of .  Denying that sets this self-administration system on a slippery slope of tossing a lot of valuable and well founded content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per the  
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Don't get too impressed by it, Cordless Larry, it's a practice known as |bombardment or |ref-bombing.  Nowhere is there a policy which states that if you can find X number of references which include the words "David Merkow", then David Merkow is automatically notable.  Epeefleeche has bombarded this article with an assortment of sources, most of which mention David Merkow in some way, but do these sources establish the notability of David Merkow?  My opinion is no, they do not.  I've briefly looked through ''all'' of the sources (but certainly didn't read every word of each of them).  The vast majority of the sources prove nothing more than that David Merkow |exists, that he plays golf, and that he got a particular score in a particular match.  Other show that he is now an assistant golf coach at a university.  That's about it.  He is an ''amateur'' golfer, he plays in ''amateur/regional/collegiate'' tournaments.  This is not a professional golfer.  The fact that he won the Pan American Maccabi Games (an ''amateur'' competition which is open only to jews from certain countries) does not establish notability in any way.  The bottom line is this:  there are sources which mention this individual, no doubt.  However, do these sources describe any notable events that this individual was involved in?  How can we define whether the events described in the sources are notable?  Well, perhaps we can take a look at the secondary notability guidelines, which exist for a reason.  Are there any sources which show that this individual has accomplished anything described at #Golf?  Not that I can see.  There is only one criterion for amateur golfers, and that is if they have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (ex: US Amateur, British Amateur).  That would be a tournament that is open to ''any'' amateur, not just teenagers from Milwaukee, or just American college students, or just jews from north/south america and israel, etc.  Epeefleeche has found a wealth of |routine coverage of events in this individual's life which are not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARD||WP:REFBOMB||WP:EXIST||WP:ATHLETE||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf + .  I'm going to end up being a bit verbose for a "weak" call, because I think the subject might end up notable someday, but the claims in the article itself don't seem to show notability despite the number of citations and other very hard efforts to show notability, and that's why I suspect this subject isn't going to get above a certain level (below notability) for now.  This article seems to still be an article about a guy who just isn't quite there yet as far as Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf.  Dousing it in inspirational happy talk about hope, and being theoretically just as good as big winners, and teammates thinking someone is special, and being really really proud of one's own genetic pool, etc., doesn't make a person notable.  Specific claims to fame in this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)