Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Leonard

Jim.dooley (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Jim.dooley (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)===Liam Leonard===[reply]

Not notable. Plain and simply Delete! TheProf | Talk 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand, It (IMO) fails WP:BIO. ~~Jim.dooley also removed a Speedy deletion tag placed on the article by User:DanielRigal.~~ TheProf | Talk 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of DanielRigal's below comment, i see i made a mistake. However, my stance on the non notability of the article still stands. TheProf | Talk 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this entry up for deletion. I find the author's works most helpful, and they are on many courses in environmentalism. The webpage refered to publishes an international journal. I have certainly seen far less notable entrys.Jim.dooley (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve references Subject is arguably notable. The main flaw with the article in establishing that is a lack of references that are ABOUT him rather than by him. An article by opponent saying why Dr Leonard was wrong about something would do it.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article creator is now vandalising page by adding his user name to it. TheProf | Talk 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author did not remove speedy. I did that myself. I originally put speedy on because I saw that the article had been previously deleted for copyvio and that the text at the time was full of tell-tale indications of a text cut-and-paste. The author complained that this was unfair and that the text was new and, as the previous deletion was some time back, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think we should be thinking of vandalism here. I think the author is just very confused. Inappropriate use of copy and paste, coupled with inappropriate signatures on articles look more like mistakes than vandalism. As for the article itself, I am neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more info and external links with articles on this author to improve the page. I am a student, new to wikipedia and I have made some mistakes, and felt this author was a very good subject due to his books, articles, cross border work and international journal editing, I have seen far less notable entrys in my time using this site. I prefer the academic resource side of wikipedia, and feel this entry is more than worthy of inclusion. I will update and improve this entry and add Jim.dooley (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)others.[reply]

To improve this site further, I have added new info and external links and with new external references added. These changes answer all of your concerns, and should lead to the delete notics being removed immediately, in accordance with wikipedia practice. Please read page on this author again, so there is no douby as to the significance of the subject