Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Leavey

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Leavey[edit]

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

This appears to be a (mainly) autobiographical article without any serious claim to notability. Hunc (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly this article is almost entirely the work of the subject, which is a serious problem. It is also full of a great deal of non-notable information, which not surprisingly is unsourced. However the page has a number of links from other pages, some of which are not trivial - for example, FOREST where Leavey's authorship of a publication is identified. My view is that this page needs serious attention and probably a major pruning exercise, but that the subject itself is notable enough to be worth retaining a separate page. Naturenet | Talk 00:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I can't see that anything on the page, including the authorship that you mention, actually amount to encyclopedic notability. But for the moment I will merely do the major pruning exercise that you suggest. Hunc (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to treat this as a withdrawn request. User:Hunc for future reference, you did not successfully complete your AfD nomination, and so this page got lost. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD the next time you want to make a deletion nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apologies, but what did I miss out? Hunc (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Hunc: As per Step II of the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, the discussion page should be created with the {{afd2}} template, which adds several useful links for the benefit of other editors who wish to evaluate and/or improve the article (including one back to the article itself). It also makes the page visible to certain bots whose functions are relevant to these pages. And then there's Step III, which is to include it on the daily log of these nominations, thereby making it visible to those editors who monitor and comment on these discussions in general. (Case in point to the above: If you create the page with the proper template, a bot will do the log listing for you if you forget...). I have completed these steps for you.
Comment to everyone else: This was a malformed nomination which has been arguably withdrawn. I've added the afd2 template here and listed it in the daily log for the sake of completeness, but I'll leave the decision to formally close to the admins. --Finngall ^talk 16:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (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.