Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Juengling

:{{la|Fritz Juengling}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fritz_Juengling Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Fritz Juengling}})

:

Previously deleted (Feb 2014) because the sources were not, as it turned out, about the subject. This article, most of which is written byby the same user, basically has the same problem.

1. A reference in another book to a book written by the subject. Not a source about the subject.

2. Ditto.

3. Ditto.

4. Tangential discussion of ideas advocated by the subject, not about th subject.

5. Per 1.

6. Directory entry (namecheck only).

7. Reference to a book by the subject

8. Reference line in a thesis.

9. Mailing list

10. Forum / mailing list

11. Book about genealogy which references books by the subject, but is not about the subject.

12. Ditto.

13. Ditto.

14. Ditto.

15. Ditto.

16. Ditto.

17. List of past winners, totality of reference is: "'89 Fritz Juengling, Sprague High ". Yes, that is a reference to something he did in high school.

18. Per 11.

19. Per 11.

So: 19 references, mainly added bythe same user who wrote the original deleted article, not one of which is about the subject. Last time we deleted it due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This time we have much more lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources.

Literally the only thing we can infer fomr these sources, per policy, is that the subject exists and has written some stuff that has been cited. I could quickly list 100 personal acquaintances who meet the same criteria, not one of whom has an article, or indeed should have.

I admire the determination of the subject's fans to write an article, but admonish them for failing to learn anything from the previous deletion. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and my comment on the previous AfD. The extensive list of sources just don't hold up well under scrutiny and fail to establish WP:N. If someone wanted to call this a G4 Speedy Delete candidate I don't think I would challenge them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Does appear to fit {{tl|db-g4}}. Also, this is part of a series on the same family and I would caution the author to note that Wikipedia is not the place for a genealogy project and that there is already an LDS wiki. There's probably a very close conflict of interest going on here. Valfontis (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to clarify that the reference #17 is not about something the subject did in high school. It is a reference to the fact that the subject, who is a 1989 graduate of Western Oregon University, was nominated in 2007 for a Salem-Keizer School District teaching award (the Crystal Apple) for his work teaching at Sprague High School in Salem, Oregon. Nomination (he didn't win) for a nice but non-notable local (not statewide) award however, still doesn't confer notability. Valfontis (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Being nominated for and not winning a local teaching award is certainly not enough, and neither is writing academic publications without evidence that they have had a significant impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Social network sites and other free listings. Nothing much. VandVictory (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.