Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Leon Raper

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Delete per creator request and the below. Neil N  talk to me 23:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Leon Raper


Extensive discussion among several editors both at Draft talk:Leon Raper and User talk:LeonRaper has come to the consensus that the subject is not notable per WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO. All of the sources provided are newsletters, local interest or passing mentions. None of the awards are from notable organizations and one can not be verified. The limited coverage in the sources is such that, even if they were in more significant publications, there is no significant claim of notability which can be made. J bh Talk  22:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was also CSD twice as Leon Raper (deletion log) J bh  Talk  23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - it is hard for me to think of any way that keeping this draft would benefit Wikipedia. The extensive support the draft creator has received from various editors to help him understand our mission is admirable, but in this case it seems that any attempt to engage the editor just results in more drama. It is simply time to move on. VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG the references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage and there simply isn’t any yet. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus is they're not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Quite a number of editors have tried to explain relevant policy and the problems with writing autobiography to the draft's creator without any success. His posts on his user talk continue to show that he has WP:OWN issues and is unwilling to "drop the stick" and move on. We can only tweak the content and formatting, etc. so far to bring it more inline with Wikipedia's MOS, etc.; We cannot, however, make the subject Wikipedia notable if the significant coverage is not there. I've tried really to find the coverage needed for this per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, but just have not been able to do so. If someone other that the draft's creator feels there is hope of this someday becoming an article, then I'm happy to listen and even reconsider my !vote. I'm afraid, unfortunately, that the sourcing provided for the current version or even the draft creator's preferred version just does not help establish Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTPROMOTION.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Creator has requested the draft be deleted with this edit. I'm not sure if either WP:G7 or WP:U1 applies because other editors have made some contributions to the draft. The draft creator, however, may stop all drama, etc. on their user talk once the draft is deleted. So, unless somebody really feels this has the possibility of becoming an article someday, this looks like a snow delete to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.