Deletion of Stephen D. Leonard

Comment: Insufficient (any?) independent refs to prove  notability. I had tried to fix the article previously, by removing (with clear edit summaries) refs that did not support the facts stated (was using a ref to an act as  that subject had used the act to bring legal action). Some of the refs did support that he had petitioned SCOTUS (pointers to filings where he was counsel), but all petitions were denied. That means you ask to bring action and the court says "no, you may not"--pretty much any lawyer admitted to bar and able to practice in high state court can do that. Not "lost on merits of trial argument" (as article suggests), but had his filing rejected up front. That's not notable, that's normal. Without ''independent refs'', we have nothing more than a list of non-successful activities there. "cases have been to and before SCOTUS" is pretty empty puffery for someone who only appears to get as far as getting rejected entry just after crossing the doorstep. All the coming-soon and uncritically analyzed books in the world only amount to "writes a lot" not "a notable writer" (see also, ). Lots of bands have demo tapes and send them to every major record company, some may even get played on a local station. They're not notable until they get public acclamation with charts and media reports about them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: fails , and a number of aspects of  (including 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BLP||WP:VERIFIABILITY)