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. Sufficient consensus that the subject is notable. Other concerns can be addressed by editing. Michig (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stafford

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notices and warnings present since 2011 and the content still remains with no references and not obvious sources on google Ameera Patel (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertising. cited to his own publications, none of which are een significant. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an antique, unsourced article, but Stafford is a sports writer for a large daily newspaper and his books get reviewed in other large daily newspapers. I searched in a news archive for "Ian Stafford" + book review. And started adding reviews, then came here instead to remind everybody that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and that we have lots of poorly sourced articles on notable people. It has been correctly tagged for sourcing since 2011. But sources exist, all that is needed is a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. There are also several hundred library holdings of his books: [1] [2]. James500 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sufficient WP:NEXIST from sufficiently reliable secondary sources to support GNG. Yes the article could be improved. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This badly fails WP:PROMO/NPOV guidelines. He is at least marginally notable as an author. It's probably a keep and WP:TNT. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sports journalist significantly mentioned by multiple reliable sources. GenuineArt (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Certainly needs a cleanup, but an award winning sports writer and I have heard of him also, read his works. Article should be able to pass GNG if updated. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep my google searches indicate he's passing basic at the minimum. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2018 (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.