Deletion of Jim Mahon

Comment: for now unless these other book sources are produced. I don't see the multiple sources that don't run afoul of geoscope and routine. While it is an otherstuff argument, since naming of trophies is mentioned above I must note that it is fairly common for us to redirect non-notable juniors to trophies named after them such as Six Broncos players and Renault. Just because you have a trophy named or dedicated to you doesn't make you notable. Often in the cases of death it would be a  situation
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: to the trophy.  Sorry, folks, but the strictly local nature of the articles run afoul of GEOSCOPE, ROUTINE and NOTMEMORIAL altogether.  Like Flibirigit, I'd be interested in 18abruce telling us about these "multiple" books, and whether they're all indeed about the subject, or to what degree the subject's mentioned; a dozen fleeting mentions still come out to 0+0+0+0=0.  Finally, as we all know,  and the GNG require not that we speculate that sources might be available (or might be difficult to find), but that such sources are demonstrated to exist as a ''prerequisite'' for saving the article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: The multiple feature articles 40+ years later make me lean keep regarding GNG.  We have multiple sources with the articles, but the minimum required and the local nature of the coverage raises some  concerns.  I am not familiar with how the book being cited was published.  If its self-published, then I don't think we can count it as independent (e.g., its in the same category as a blog with no editorial review), so I am not considering the book towards meeting GNG.  If someone can explain that it holds up to review for the GNG requirements, then I would go from weak keep to keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)