Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryant H. McGill

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant_H._McGill[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet notability criteria for an author at WP:AUTHOR. Krychek (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That could be the most fluffed-up Wikipedia bio I've seen. Has anyone abstracted out the cites to RSes that aren't passing mentions and aren't just articles by him? - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Yes it's so bad I daresay WP:TNT could apply, unless anyone cared to hack this back. I sure don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I think the part that shows the character of this article is the "bibliography of published aphorisms." For those unaware, an aphorism is a short, terse saying. I have no way of figuring out if this unweildy list is correct, but "eat eggs not chicken" is an aphorism, and if I am the first one to say it, and 10 people quote in in their book, and 5 people include it in books that are compilations of aphorisms, it still does not make me notable. If "Eat eggs not chicken" got enough coverage as an aphorism that it merited an article, I am still not convinced that would be grounds to create an article on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess as the nominator I should go ahead and vote, right? Also, I would not apply WP:TNT, as that would imply that the subject is notable enough for a "do over." I really don't think he is. Krychek (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Your "vote" is your nomination statement. An Afd nominator does not then enter another bolded !vote below. It's just not how it's done, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks, I normally only nominate speedy deletes. Krychek (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy cow. 413 sources and not one of them attests to the subject's notability. Warning for editors attempting to bushwack through the reflist to find anything useful: almost every reference in that list is there to assert that a book exists, rather than to substantiate any facts about the article subject. A Train^talk 22:24, 8 September 2016 (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.