Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Volstad

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Volstad[edit]

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

Article on a commercial painter who does the covers of books on miniature figures, and is apparently well known (according the article) for a series of box covers for 1/6 scale model kits. I'm not pretending to understand what this guy is notable for. I just don't think he's notable, following several searches. All that comes up are the books he has done the covers for. Nothing in secondary sources as far as I can see. Sole link on article page is to his self-published site. Scale modelers, chime in! New Media Theorist (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he may be "one of the world's most respected military illustrators", and I do respect this guy, it's just that there's a lack of coverage as stated above [1], [2]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-neutral, mostly POV/OR article without sufficient coverage for notability (fails GNG). NOTE: sole sourcelink is Volstad's own studio's website; thus add that he also fails RS. Quis separabit? 11:30, 26 September 2015 (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.