Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Lodato

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. NW (Talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lodato

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

Non-notable author, list of works include one book published this year, and one upcoming. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't try to define what a notable author is. Mr Lodato is based in London, Uk. Accordingly, I would prefer it if somebody Uk based were to contest the veritability of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not from the UK, but Google.co.uk news results show nothing. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable author, editor seems to have a Conflict Of Interest as the username is the same name as the publishers of Lodato's book. Jarkeld (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is strongly leaning toward a7. Smithers (Talk) Give thanks! 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sanction Non-notable author with little evidence of third-party coverage. Wikipedia has guidelines as to what constitutes notability. If you don't want others to review the content you post, then I suggest you don't post. You also do not set the rules as to who can or cannot review articles. DarkAudit (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nomination, and pass me the Kleenex. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment commented out some of Pegasuspublishers's remarks as borderline attacks. As for the article I say mega delete. Article claims notability, so isn't A7 worthy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't pass notability guidelines - but not G7. Skier Dude (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this is promotional materials with no notability. andyminicooper (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources, no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources from which to write an article. Mrathel (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (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.