Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moray Laing
it seems that at least one editor still thinks that the sources are adequate, so I'm going to go through them in turn. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moray-Laing/e/B001JP9SNK Amazon is not a source at all, because it doesn't discuss this person as a person at all, merely sells their books. Nice try though. http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Moray_Laing Wikia is |self-published and thus not reliable. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2008/01/18/52175.shtml The BBC is a deadlink. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article7063742.ece This is a five-word mention which in no way constitutes |significant coverage. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=38612&sectioncode=1 The Press Gazette features Mr Laing making a short, one-sentence comment on the readership of his magazine. It doesn't mention Mr Laing as a person at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/author/moray-laing The Guardian Bookshop – see my comments about Amazon above. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/09/12/48755.shtml The other BBC link is also dead. http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Adventures BookRags appears to be a |self-published wiki. http://www.featuresexec.com/bulletin/news.php?newsid=XQgLg FeaturesExec just has a one-sentence piece which doesn't count as significant coverage. http://www.dwamag.com/ The DWA website isn't an independent source and anyway doesn't seem to mention Mr Laing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbf1V0Nms6Q The BBC News interview isn't about Laing, and is just him talking anyway, meaning that it's not significant coverage and it's not independent. So the sources are desperately poor in terms of quality and I'd be interested to hear why those !voting 'keep' have done so anyway
— User:TreasuryTag, 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:SPS (Wikipedia:Verifiability)