Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M G Leonard (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Beetle Boy. Those who !voted keep acknowledge that it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON for her to have her own article and those who !voted delete acknowledge that the book itself is notable, so redirecting there and maybe merging a few facts about the author into the article seems the accepted way to go (cf. WP:ATD).  So Why  18:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

M G Leonard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of this article does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. It's still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a note, I imagine the notability here may be somewhat dependent on the outcome of her newly created book's page as well, per WP:AUTHOR. I haven't reviewed the sources to see if they focus enough on her, not just her works, to pass GNG, however, hence my withheld vote. Yvarta (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the book does pass the AfD discussion, it's just one book. WP:ONEEVENT would apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine there are quite a few authors who have passed notability with only one released work. That said, if none of the coverage is on her, a redirect for now to the book (if it survives) might be a perfectly fine solution. Yvarta (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep A cursory Google News search brings up lots of stuff. Most of it is about the book, but some of it is about her writing process (par example: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/nov/03/how-to-write-a-book-nanowrimo-national-novel-writing-month-top-tips-mg-leonard) or other things she's done (http://www.broadwayworld.com/uk-regional/article/ART-OF-MAKE-BELIEVE-STAGING-CHILDRENS-STORIES-Exhibition-on-View-at-the-National-Theatre-Gallery-20161222). The article definitely needs improvement though. Not sure it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, would counter that WP:NORUSH may be a more appropriate way of thinking about it. Missjastersgarden (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON and auto-biographical. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Added some external sources, of which there are many. It's pretty clear to me that there are ample sources to support an article. That said, the autobiographical nature of the article is somewhat more troubling, and I hope more neutral parties will contribute to editing this entry. Missjastersgarden (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book may be notable, but as of now the author isn't, IMO. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, but this article's main contributors are clearly more interested in that rather than in Wikipedia's real purpose. If it's kept, I'll be pruning it severely. —S MALL  JIM   14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * keep It is awfully early career, but the sources do support notability. I don't think this  review from The Hindu has been added yet.  Making an unusual splash for a 1st novel, juvenile market.  I hope User:Smalljim will cut some of the primary sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Beetle Boy The book may be notable, but that doesn't make the author automatically notable as well. There needs to be material about the author themselves. I don't see enough to pass WP:AUTHOR here as well, so a redirect works fine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as the obvious solution given there's still not the genuinely convincing substance but, while there's sourcing, it's not enough for a currently convincing article of its own. As for the "Keeps" above, they themselves still emulate the acknowledgement of this not being enough; as for the 1 review then cited above, it's a publication known for accepting payment, so that alone is a concern. SwisterTwister   talk  06:09, 22 January 2017 (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.