Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoo Rayner

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoo Rayner

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

Notability: Despite being tagged 18 months ago, no real references have been produced: two links are to sites set up by Rayner, one is dead and the McDonald's link doesn't mention him. The one site which carries an interview with him is too thin Leutha (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total absence of evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of 150+ children's books. G&H says he is "popular" and "critically acclaimed".[1] 6.5 million of his books were given away in Happy Meals.[2] Listed on many government reading lists for younger readers, for example: [3][4] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom, especially the Gazzette and Herald piece. Seems to have received significant coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources stating that this is a significant author. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Green Cardamom. scope_creep talk 20:43 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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.