Deletion of John Leach (writer)

Comment: I commend to you , one of the elements of Wikipedia's MoS, a term well-known to AfD regulars, if possibly less so to those editors who focus their attention on cricket.  I've just added some content dispute tags, given that the article is not anywhere close to NPOV; there are many unreferenced and unsourced statements of opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: as a cricket WikiProject member, I'll respect BlackJack's wishes and not give an opinion, but I point out  the obvious, that users' personal opinions of BlackJack the editor on Wikipedia are irrelevant to the opinion as to whether or not this article passes 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'm not sure what the rationale for this nomination is.  Reading the talk page, it appears that Mr Leach (BlackJack, the nominator) feels that he ''passes''  (so the article should be kept), but has nominated the article for deletion so that his notability can be confirmed.  I would remind him that stare decisis does not apply to Wikpedia, and that, even if this AfD results in a "Keep", there's no restriction on the article being re-nominated immediately.  If not exactly a bad-faith nomination, it's certainly out-of-process - perhaps the best thing to do is close _this_ AfD, and wait until one of Mr Leach's detractors raises a genuine objection to his notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Per  and . Seems notable enough, if only just
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BIO)

Comment: Following Tevildo, I am quite happy to question this fellow's notability.  There are ''zero'' |reliable sources ''about'' the subject; simply links to web articles of his.  Numerous unsourced statements and peacock terms puffing up his alleged credentials riddle the article.  Zero hits on Google Scholar
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)