Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eddie Zajdel

This editor who is proposing the deletion of this article believes he or she has significant points, except for the fact that they are entirely bias. He or she begins the dispute using the term "Junk Sourcing" which is a personal stance taken entirely from the opinion of this editor, with no given points. This editor took very little time to truly assess what these sources are, and the reason why these sources were used.

This editor begins by addressing issues from a personal standpoint, not reading the articles and leaving out the bigger picture. The editor proposing the deletion quotes "a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level" In the article this source, in no way was referring to the notability of this individual as baseball player, but rather further sourcing that this individual "graduated from Canton High School".

Another quote from the editor "just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine" again this source was not in any way intended to reference his notability of a director, but further establishing that he did indeed have a passion for art and creation at a young age.

The editor also quotes "it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context" This editor is taking the amount of sources listed and using that to determine "without even reading them" that they are not credible.

There are countless number or wikipedia pages that establish notability using 3 or less articles including IMDb and online publications. This article just happens to use 11 of them to further establish the notability of every sentence in the bio.

I am not claiming this individual to be Steven Spielberg, however Eddie Zajdel is known for what he does in the film industry. This article is explaining in an unbiased way who Eddie Zajdel is and what he has done. This clearly fits the requirement for Wikipedia. This article uses 11 sources to insure the notably of every word written in the article.

Wikipedia quotes "sources may encompass published works in any form and media, and in any language" just because this editor in his or her opinion dislikes the articles used to determine notability, does not mean in any way that they do not establish notability. This editors proposed deletion article was poorly written with no concept, which demonstrates to me that he or she did not take the time to look deeper into the reasons these sources were used, and the true concept of this page.

This article is not the strongest article ever created on Wikipedia, but just because an editor briefly reads the article, reads none of the sources, makes irrelavent points personally assessing this individual, and fails to take the time to look deeper into the reasons why they were used is not in ANY WAY a reason for an article to be deleted.

MatthewFayer (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)