Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Flint

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. John254 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Flint[edit]

On Google, there are very few sites about him. Not referenced. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems notable from what I can see. He was notable enough for the New York Times to feature his obituary -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Quite a few articles from the New York Times say in the area of at least (40) as shown here [1]. In addition, multiple other articles both in the US and internationally as shown here [2]. Shoessss | Chat 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—ACBL (Am Contract Bridge Lge) Encyclopedia entry for Flint fully justifies his inclusion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely notable having played for hist country in the Bermuda Bowl. The number of websites about someone is not a very reliable indicator. JH (talk page) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Flint was a leading player of a well known card game that is widely played all over the world. He has even played bridge on TV. Viewfinder (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number of Google search results should not have been used as a rationale for deletion, particularly for someone who died in 1989! Even then, did you check Google Books? Unreferenced articles should probably be deleted if it's clear such references are not going to be forthcoming, but it's a bit unfair to nominate an article four minutes after its creation rather than just tagging it as needing references and allowing a day or two for the article to be fixed up and referenced to its current state, which I'm sure you'll agree is fine. --Canley (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I have seen on Google, he seems pretty notable (I'm not an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong...) — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability looks good. Doczilla (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.