Deletion of Bill Majors

Comment: Baseline Keep): Refer not to |waxy but to  and this particular quote therein: "Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how notable is notable" - but we cannot rely on ours."  Poseidon or pneumatic or whatever his name is doesn't refute my point but makes it.  Why walk this silly tightrope of 'all references are equal but some are more equal than others'?  If you want to dig up your cross-country win reported by the Jellystown Gazette and include that ribbon-breaking glory-shot taken by your mom 'go ahead with your bad se'f', as we say back home.  My vision of Wikipedia is unlike that of the stiff leather-bound Encyclopædia Britannica I grew up with (and still exists for all those encyclopedia puritans out there): as long as sources are cited, grammatical and objective standards are maintained, and photos are free from copyright infringement, I say let it all ride, from Bill Majors, through Steve Lomasney, to Gerald P. Pulley.  Let's allow Wikipedia to reflect the fullness of all documented information rather than making it into some public version of the World Book Encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:NOTBIGENOUGH)

Comment: This article doesn't yet make an adequate case for the notability of the subject, in my view. I am not too distressed if it is kept, but it seems unable to express what is interesting or significant about the man.  He seems to have won some awards, but the article doesn't tell us what work he did to deserve the awards. Perhaps there are some additional sources to be found somewhere. The article also contains some ridiculous wikilinks to generally-understood English words such as article and daughter, that I'm sure an editor could quickly fix. The first entry under 'Bibliography' is a forum posting that I'm sure is not acceptable under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Without any reference to inclusionism vs. deletionism, this article -- considered as a stand-alone article -- seems to be of interest to the strictly local area of a single city and thus doesn't seem to me to meet otable.  We already have something that contains endless reams of human knowledge (and opinion), collected and displayed without regard to notability (or accuracy or common sense) -- it's called the Internet.  This is an encyclopedia and it's for otable|notable topics.  Anyone who wants to try and change the notability policy is welcome to do so -- elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: At least two solid, reliable, independent references giving significant coverage to the subject are shown in the article, therefore it meets . And besides that, he seems to be a nice guy, and that's just gotta count for something
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per nom, although some more solid references could move me to not care one way or the other.  Besides, argument above isn't compelling (though I do appreciate the info on aglet) and the Jim Elliot statement is both |waxy and, more to the point, makes exactly the opposite argument the writer is trying to make.  It's sort of like saying that Bill Rodgers (athletics)|Bill Rodgers had a long-distance running article of more import written about him, and I had mention in a couple of articles that I ran cross-country, so I do too.  I did, and I don't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)