Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Page McBee

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. The consensus is that the person has not, so far, received the third-party coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Page McBee

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

Think it fails WP:BIO Can't see notability. scope_creep talk 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the talk page comment, "prolific, award-winning author with a book coming out". This is a high profile writer and editor that apparently doesn't have their own publicist. The breadth of the speaking engagements and writings alone should be plenty. Third-party reviews of he book will start to roll out if they haven't already (I don't know when the book is to be released, reviews usually hit a month before or so.) - Masioka
Comment Fixed afd format for Masioka. scope_creep talk 18:06 14
Delete I see no reliable third-party sources. The NY Times link is to an article of his own, which is not 3rd party. The article cites his own web site multiple times - not third party. The Salon link is also an article by McBee, not about him. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at this point; maybe after the book comes out he might get a little more notice. But for now, all I can find is self-referential sources, such as columns he wrote; I'm not finding significant coverage ABOUT him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the assessment that there WP:RS just aren't there. The content used is not about him; we can't legitimately base a WP:BLP on that. No prejudice to recreation if notability can be established after the release of his book, but the claim above that notability will definitely be established then is crystal-balling. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 19 August 2014 (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.