Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen D. Leonard


 * 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   speedy delete. Speedy G3'd. Blatant hoax is blatant. The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen D. Leonard

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doing some searches of this person, I have found zero information on him or on any of his books. The sources given do not mention him at all - they just describe the various statutes and laws in which this person was involved. Complete lack of verifiability, possibly a hoax. –MuZemike 02:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. That's what I suspected when I first tagged the article. For a prominent lawyer, this person is absolutely invisible. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

99.137.209.90 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This person is completely non-notable by Wikipedia standards, if he exists. The article does not says he is a lawyer, and he could just be a disgruntled guy with a gripe against the legal system who has written some unpublished texts that he calls "books".  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOTABILITY, and a number of aspects of WP:BLP (including WP:VERIFIABILITY). Rxlxm (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if everything claimed in the article was true, it wouldn't make him notable - nobody seems to have even noted his existence. BTW, try searching for the 'books' he supposedly published, and note their apparent invisibility too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I mentioned that at the author's talk page, which was blanked. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient (any?) independent refs to prove WP:BIO notability. I had tried to fix the article previously, by removing (with clear edit summaries) refs that did not support the facts stated (was using a ref to an act as WP:RS that subject had used the act to bring legal action). Some of the refs did support that he had petitioned SCOTUS (pointers to filings where he was counsel), but all petitions were denied. That means you ask to bring action and the court says "no, you may not"--pretty much any lawyer admitted to bar and able to practice in high state court can do that. Not "lost on merits of trial argument" (as article suggests), but had his filing rejected up front. That's not notable, that's normal. Without independent refs, we have nothing more than a list of non-successful activities there. "cases have been to and before SCOTUS" is pretty empty puffery for someone who only appears to get as far as getting rejected entry just after crossing the doorstep. All the coming-soon and uncritically analyzed books in the world only amount to "writes a lot" not "a notable writer" (see also, WP:CRYSTAL). Lots of bands have demo tapes and send them to every major record company, some may even get played on a local station. They're not notable until they get public acclamation with charts and media reports about them. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:55, 17 October 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.