Deletion of Leo Ford (2nd nomination)

Comment: per - wait for it -  and . I propose that the argument raised above about the problems with , especially the point about there having been no awards he could have won during his career, make it common sense to ignore  in this case. In my opinion, there's enough sourcing for him to satisfy (weakly)  in any case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:IGNORE||WP:PORNBIO||WP:PORNBIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: The extent of coverage in the sources can absolutely be verified. Publishers and ISBN numbers are provided. You have just chosen not to leave your computer to verify the sources. There is nothing at all in  that requires that sources be online to be reliable: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Wikipedia:Offline sources says (in bold text, no less), "'''Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources.'''" In fact, you should not believe everything you read on the internet. An AfD cannot rely on your "guess" about what the sources say or don't say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Yes, |Verifiability ''is'' policy and it allows offline sources, see erifiability#Access_to_sources: "''The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: If you disagree with what  and Wikipedia:Offline sources say about offline sources, you can propose changes to those policies on the appropriate talk changes and see if you can get consensus for the changes. Until that happens, offline sources remain valid, notwithstanding your preference for online sources. If you think the sources don't say what they are purported to say, Wikipedia:Offline sources has this advice: "Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: satisfies  - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Several independent published sources. Connection to the Smiths makes this an interesting article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)