Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Peat O'Neil

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. czar ⨹ 02:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L. Peat O'Neil[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This autobiographical contains many references but the author/subject is a writer. It is not notable that they are published, notability is when sources write about the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all the references currently in the article are primary. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and no indication it meets WP:Author. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she meets WP:Author, but I can't prove it. To meet it, she would need at least two reviews of her book Travel Writing. The book is found in 373 U.S. libraries, and libraries buy on the basis of reviews, so they must have read reviews of it somewhere. However, I only found one review, in Booklist, so I can't show that she is notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like pretty flagrant self promotion. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 2 December 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.