Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Bernstein

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bernstein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a US state level chess champion just does not seem to be enough to make one notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was a minor master but participation in the very strong Carlsbad 1923 chess tournament probably gets him over the line. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ranked 60ish in the world during the 1910s is good enough for me to consider him notable. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is adequately sourced, and it helps to Build The Web. A very good example of an article that no one would argue is essential, but that helps add to the richness and depth of coverage that Wikipedia can provide as compared to a paper encyclopedia. Linked from Carlsbad 1923 chess tournament, so deletion would also make that article worse. I can't think of any way in which deleting this article could improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several notable sources on him; passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:16, 14 December 2016 (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.