Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les McKeown (author)


 * 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. Including the nominator, there seems to be a consensus that the subject is not sufficiently notworthy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Les McKeown (author)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO, with little or no third party coverage that I can find. Another of the hundred thousand authors who write inspirational little books about becoming confident/organisational structure/other bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople, not "inspiration". See this Google News archive search for a number of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * " He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople" - wonderful guideline-based argument. Five brief mentions is not enough to pass WP:BIO; he's been consulted for soundbites, the articles aren't about him or covering him in any detail. Ironholds (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ironholds is right, none of the sources provided qualify as significant coverage and I can't find any anywhere. Fails WP:N PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (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.