Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Leonard

Liam Leonard

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 doubt as to the significance of the subject. Jim.dooley (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the primary references and included external references in their place. I have added some new references, which should help to clarify the significance of this subject. Apologies for signing earlier edits, I wasn't aware.

New references added including Google Scholar and Google books entries for this subjects works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.dooley (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have upgraded the bibliography and external links section. This should underpin the subject's significant academic contribution. Apoligies for earlier errors, don't delete page because of my errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.193.66 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral probably does not qualify as an academic; very few libraries have his books, and there do not seem to be any substantial reviews yet. The journal is not yet significant either. Whether he might possibly be notable as an economic activist is harder to distinguish. DGG (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and insuffcient coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New external links added to improve quality of page. Page should be kept to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Irish issues.

I feel this article should be kept. For instance, how is the subject in this article: John Hogan (mathematician) (via WP:PROD on 2008-01-10) Unprodded any more notable then Dr Leonard, who has a far superior record of publications and history of activism in North & Rep Ireland? I mean this as a genuine inquiry, no disrespect to editors or Prof Hogan, but the subject has a significant record.77.107.197.64 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-new info on publications and library collections which feature subject answer all concerns posted on this page.