Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H. Stamler (2nd nomination)
without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much better than this. Nothing stated here is an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to have an article just because he existed, but the sourcing is not strong enough to get him over  — three of the seven sources aren't doing anything at all, because one is a |primary source, one just glancingly verifies the existence of a scholarship that was named after him (which is not a notability clincher) while containing no content about him, and one verifies an entirely tangential fact about his widow rather than being about him. And while the other four are better, they aren't convincingly adding up to ''enough'' coverage to confer a "notable because media coverage exists" pass — they all represent the ''local'' level of coverage that any county prsecutor in any county would simply be ''expected'' to have in the local media, and the fact that a person's ''local'' media market happens to have ''The New York Times'' in it does not reify into an instant notability-clincher in and of itself either. Given the length of time he held the position, it's plausible that enough coverage to get him over GNG might exist if somebody digs deeper than this — but improved coverage would have to be ''shown'' to exist, not just theorized as possible, before it changes the notability equation, and the volume of coverage shown right now is not enough
— User:Bearcat, 16:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Wikipedia:Notability)