Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Ronald Grossman

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Ronald Grossman

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

Hidden gecko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable author. Spam piece. Virtually all 45 refs are self-references. Many go to his website where we can buy his books. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Created by SPA now stopped editing. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you possibly tell me what else this article would need to give it notability? All his books have been published by reputable publishers, He is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wildside press article. None of the reviews are self published, the references that go back to his pages were just convenient because they provide the actual bibliographic data on each review. and he has edited and co-edited books at Avon, a major publisher. I'm sure I could find a few more news articles on the Red Sox Fan Handbook since that is one of his more notable titles. I've added a little bit more today but a little bit more feedback would be appreciated. (Hidden gecko (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've added in a newstimes.com piece on his Red sox handbook, a reputable secondary source, an interview with redsoxnation.net, and a link to his guide to publishing, which is frequented by publishing industry professionals. In addition I've found a few reviews of his books by third parties. He's also currently writing/compiling a thorough Science Fiction anthology textbook in the vein of a Norton anthology but I can't include that yet because I don't have permission from him to. (Hidden gecko (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and the article is very spammy. scope_creep (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He passes #3 using WP:CREATIVE and #2 of WP:BIO based on the books he has edited using Ref 24 on the page you can see he has edited annotated versions of Frankenstein, H.P. Lovecraft, and Dracula to name a few. I also included a link to http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Fond-memories-inspire-The-Red-Sox-Handbook-239484.php a reputable secondary source about his Red Sox Novel. He was also interviewed by David Laurila http://www.maplestreetpress.com/authors.cfm?author_id=9 a well published Journalist/Author from Baseball Prospectus. I also removed all the links to his reviews since their are redundant to the single link I provided earlier on with the list of reviews he has done. (Hidden gecko (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any evidence of his having received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails general notability guidelines. Just because he has published things or co-edited things does not make him notable. --Crunch (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (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.