Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Trish Leigh

 __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. Salvio giuliano 23:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Trish Leigh

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is misuse of draft space for promotion, and not a serious attempt to create a biography. No sources are cited, and a search makes it immediately obvious that independent in-depth coverage necessary to meet notability criteria cannot be found, as has been repeatedly pointed out to the article creator. Meanwhile, the draft has repeatedly been used to make unsourced claims about a third party who has no connection with the individual concerned, in contravention of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails to meet any criteria on WP:BIO. The only independently produced content I can find about her is this article that consists of summarizing her own content without providing any evidence that she would otherwise meet WP:BIO.  Stuart 98  ( Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete as an unsourced biography of a living person. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - this draft is an unsourced BLP and any sourcing that was in earlier versions were not about Leigh. Given the unsourced claims about another living person as noted in the nomination, this draft should be deleted versus the more usual treatment for drafts. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Four references have been added, but none of them are independent reliable sources. Leaving above !vote unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Removing 'Weak' after observing misuse of draft about another living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She argues too much dopamine destroys the brain Jm33746 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious violation of WP:BLP and WP:BIO. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * She is helping to highlight porn addiction and how it destroys brains. . She is establishing a new neuroscience consensus on how porn damages the brain Jm33746 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The next time you violate WP:BLP policy, I shall report the matter, and call for you to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They received their first warning in December 2020 about BLP violations. Guess they don’t care. Equine-man (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This particular quack is clearly not notable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She was a unc professor 159.230.155.16 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Was interviewed by bbc 159.230.155.16 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails to meet criteria on WP:BIO. Equine-man (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (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.