Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kirtzman
without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a direct conflict of interest can do better than this. For the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, notability is less a factor of what an article ''says'' than of how well the article |reliably sources what it says, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all — half of the footnotes are to |primary sources that cannot support notability (books sourced to their own publication details rather than to reliable source coverage ''about'' them, building sourced to photograph of building, etc.), while the sources that do represent media coverage are almost all just glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. The only source here that's ''about'' him in any non-trivial way is the wedding announcement, but that represents |routine "coverage" that doesn't actually establish notability either. While he might be eligible to keep an article that was sourced ''properly'', nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to keep him if he's sourced like ''this
— User:Bearcat, 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)