Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Jacobson


 * 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   delete. slakr \ talk / 00:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Jacobson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, paucity of sources, nothing even close to establishing notability under any standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources.  The article strays far from a neutral point of view and is sourced entirely to primary sources.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stub or delete. There are mentions in a couple of academic journals:
 * 
 * (see also )
 * Google Books mentions are mostly self-published authors; perhaps with the exception of.
 * Google News coverage is incidental: ; enough to verify that the person exists, but not to write a long article about him. -- JN 466  11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The possible exception isn't an exception. It is also a self-published book.  Google Books tells us that the author is Martin Ucik, and the publisher is singles2couples publishing.  The Singles2couples web site tells us that Martin Ucik is the founder of singles2couples. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. All in all, I think it's a delete. -- JN 466  13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a long advertisement, WP:SPAM.  Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK.  His "publisher," by its own admission, publishes only his books . Qworty (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete advert per arguments of Qworty. Yworo (talk) 14:15, 31 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.