Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leighton Gage


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Leighton Gage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've tried cleaning it up and finding sources, but only primary sources on article and no RS sources found. Not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I might also add that the original creator keeps linking the first mention of his name to his website. I've already reverted once, not going to get into an edit war on an article that is likely to be deleted anyway.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See below Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Leighton Gage is a mystery writer. We are currently in the process of learning Wikipedia's policies and editing procedures. His books have been praised in the New York Times and other literary publications. Leighton is published by SoHo press in the U.S. and has Finish and Dutch translations, making him an internationally known author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratters77 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)  — Ratters77 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Who is "we"? Dennis Brown (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * His family. Please remove the deletion tag. I will work diligently over the next week to ensure there are proper references and citations. Thank You, Christien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratters77 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply While being family doesn't disqualify you from writing an article on him, it is discouraged. Please read WP:COI.  The tag has to stay for 1 week (sometimes longer) and others will review and insert their opinions on the article passing the criteria.  It is a well thought out process and not an instant thing.  For that matter, if you were able to "clean up" the article to the point that notability was obvious, I would request to withdraw the nomination.  For the record, it is pretty tough to write an "acceptable" article on Wikipedia on your first attempt.  There are a lot of guidelines, rules and what not.  There really is a good reason for it.  I will keep checking on it.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This author's works have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. A Google News search turns up many reviews, some behind pay walls.  These are a few of the ones available for view: NY Times Feb 2008, NY Times Dec 2010, Globe and Mail Feb 2010, Star-Tribune Feb 2011, Boston Globe Jan 2010. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - I've cleaned up the article to conform with the manual of style, added references, and removed some promotional language. As such I've cleared the clean up tags.  If the those with a conflict of interest wish to edit the article, I'd be more than willing to assist them to ensure that the article continues to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination Withdrawn, requesting speedy close - Whpq found and inserted many good cites that I had not been able to find, and cleaned the article up to boot. At this time, it would appear obvious that the author is indeed notable.  Good work.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.