Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Lacey

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. – Joe (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lacey

[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)

Non-notable author. Only found maybe two “in memoriam” pieces and zero reviews of his work. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's taking some digging, but I found some coverage for one of his books. The coverage is sort of about the author as well to a degree as it discusses his faith and what he went through during the book process. I think we could justify a page for either the book or the author, but not really both. Since I don't think that this would lose much if it were merged into the author's article, my thought is that we should keep the author's article and delete the individual articles for his books. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this page definitely needs cleanup. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Finding sources for this isn't really easy since there's a lot of junk hits out there, putting it mildly and nicely. He's best known for his street Bible, but there's some mild coverage of him as far as his death and his wife's book goes. It's not the heaviest coverage out there, but I also kind of get the impression that there's more out there, given the way some of the coverage is written. I think it's enough to justify a single article and rather than just have one on the book, I think it'd be best to have one on the author, since that way it can sort of cover his work as a whole. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvement to the article since nomination which now shows enough coverage in reliable sources for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2021 (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.