Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. McFarlane

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 05:30Z

[edit] Thomas J. McFarlane

Thomas J. McFarlane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO for the writing or the acting. Neil916 (Talk) 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability standard. Eusebeus 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO both as actor & writer. SkierRMH 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Notable per WP:BIO as a published author who received multiple independent reviews of their work. Einstein and Buddha was independently reviewed, e.g., by Publishers Weekly, Dec 2001; NY Spirit, June 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.209.151 (talk • contribs) 17:47, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't meet WP:BIO, which states "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". The reviews you mention are of the book, not the person. The proposed guidelines for WP:BK (still in development), put a notability threshhold at "The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[4] reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. Reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion. " Neil916 (Talk) 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines in WP:BK, however, apply specifically to articles about books, so they are not applicable to articles about people. Regarding the guidelines in WP:BIO, it says that "people who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles." One of the items listed in WP:BIO is that the person is a published author who received multiple independent reviews of their work. Since this criterion is met, it is not clear why the article allegedly fails the notability standard for articles about people. (If it should fail, then it would seem the guidelines WP:BIO need to be updated.) 67.171.209.151 23:47, 22 December 2006 (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.