Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Priestley

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Priestley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject's book was reviewed in the Financial Times [1], but that's the only reliable source I can find with any coverage. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG's requirement of multiple independent reliable sources. January (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a book review is not coverage of the topic which is the person. And that is the one and only reference in the article. So, no indication of wp:notability. Also no specific even claims of notability in the article except authoring of the book. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than having written a book that has received a single review, this article gives no evidence of the notability of the author. Also links to the subject's blog - swell, but having a blog does not make one notable. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:AUTHOR, he has basically no coverage anywhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.