Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Spafford

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. A completely different article than when the AFD started and obvious the momentum would continue to be "keep" now. Dennis - 2¢ 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Spafford[edit]

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

The subject may have been an expert in a very narrow field, however, there is no coverage from reliable secondary sources. The only source comes from his own interest group. Notability not established, fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Won four medals in his area of expertise. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost all the sources provided are primary. He needs coverage in mainstream media which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the sources are not primary, and The Guardian seems like mainstream media to me. Narrow field is not a consideration; there are lots of articles on people who are renowned only in a single field, like politicians and athletes. Passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much expanded since the AfD nom, and as Hawkeye7 notes, plenty of secondary sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2014 (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.