Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Leigh


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Mark Leigh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No doubt written some books, no coverage whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Meets WP:AUTHOR as his books have been reviewed world-wide, e.g. Daily Record and Times of SA. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources with any sort of substantial coverage?  These are utterly trivial books. They don't justify an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't let the triviality of the books determine notability or substitute our judgment of the triviality of the books for the judgment of RS. If the books are reviewed then the RS have decided the author is notable.  192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But the triviality of the books seems to have mitigated against them receiving any sort of serious review. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But we don't let our own feelings about the seriousness of reviews influence our judgments about notability. If there are reviews and the reviews appear in RS at an appropriate level then the author is notable.  Like this guy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my personal subjective bias blinded me to the extensive career retrospective that was afforded in the TLS. Perhaps you have a link to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that you feel that you have to resort to sarcasm, but the Times of SA is as good as the TLS for establishing notability. I mean, why not go try to AfD Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set based on the fact that it wasn't reviewed in the TLS? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete article lacks even one reliable source. This is not acceptable for a BLP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, "c'mon!! with titles like The World According to Nigel Farage, FBI’s Most Wanted Cats, Teddy Bears Of The Rich & Famous, and The Extra-Terrestrial’s Guide To The X-Files, amongst others this guy has got to be notable!" "no coola, not without sources", "Drat!!" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they simply don't meet WP:NAUTHOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:22, 10 December 2018 (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.