Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Leonard (director)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Leonard (director)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was previously deleted, Mark Leonard (writer). This is just a re-created article, substituting 'writer' for 'director', but with even less evidence than the first time. ListCheck (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us completely disregard this WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of AfD.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, you think the AfD should be disregarded 'just because you don't like it.' However,re-creating a deleted article, with even less substance, is a reason to re-deleting. Having a guest blog post on a significant venue won't change that. ListCheck (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can make pages about those who have passed WP:Notability.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. He writes for significant publications (assuming they're all referring to the same guy), but nothing much is written about him, so he fails WP:GNG. Speedy delete if it has already been deleted before. Love his portrayal of Spock's father though. Clarityfiend (talk)
 * , . It will fail WP:GNG only if nothing has been written about him, but he founded European Council on Foreign Relations, which is notable enough. He wrote a book in 2005, named Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century which has been reviewed by legit reviewers.,.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a topic certainly doesn't fail GNG only if nothing has been written about it. Having something written is not enough, specially if what's written is a blog-post. The speedy delete of Clarityfiend above is well motivated, and so is my AfD. ListCheck (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter how much you repeat yourself, your point is not a fact. CNN, Reuters, etc have got blog, so they don't become unreliable. You have got no reason to present that this article should be deleted, other than "it was deleted before", which is not really helpful.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:WRITER: Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century was widely reviewed. Follow-up What Does China Think? also got some coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Colapenninsula's finds are compelling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And helpful.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (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.