Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Call Black
changed from above): I cringe sometimes when I see that AFD is not clean up. An argument that we should have articles written from obituaries (or accept them as clues because finding sources are difficult) is not likely one of the better ones I have seen for notability. That is why there is a sourcing requirements and not automatic or inherent notability. The searches I performed was on information I saw (or couldn't see because of a dead link) and was flawed. The sources added allow others to verify information and I was able to also find an author, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c85d/1d74b3d6d9493bf0e3570c5c490b5324636a.pdf William W. Korth, that referred to the subject (for example, see Black, 1965) more than once. What is shown now is far better than what looked like a |memorial article written primarily from obituaries. To me the article surpasses "clues" of notability or "seems to satisfy..." comments and if
— User:Tacyarg, 06:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTOBITUARY (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)