Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Blood


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Blood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:BIO, in that no sources exist to establish notability for this person. Tried looking for sources to help expand and save this article, but I am unsuccessful.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Only source links to his web page. Doesn't seem to be notable politically and certainly doesn't meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to point out that his book on Mrs. Albright was reviewed i.e. by (Jerusalem Post, accessible via HighBeam Research)  (Kirkus Reviews) and  (Publishers Weekly). See also G-books results for metions about the book. His other literary works are less frequently reviewed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see the potential for him to be notable under WP:AUTHOR, if the sourcing were substantively improved to cite coverage of his writing, but nothing here gets him over WP:NPOL and nobody ever qualifies for an article on here on the basis of exclusively primary sourcing to their own website. No prejudice against recreation in the future if his career as a writer can be properly sourced, but this version as written is a delete if the sourcing isn't beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete My god, you need to actually read the reviews, not just cite them. First, Kirkus attempts to review every book published in English and likely to be available to libraries. Their review reads: "A slapdash effort, lacking in critical perspective and reading like a background report for an Albright for President campaign. Blood, a lobbyist and trustee of the Democratic National Committee, is so gushing about his subject that he may have unwittingly created a new phenomenon: damning with great praise." Library Journal also pans it. Publishers weekly reviews about 7K books a year, all offered by the publishers themselves. I don't know what that review says, but generally they are very short (200 words) and are aimed to sell the book. This person is not notable. LaMona (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of significant independent coverage. Fails NOTEBLP fails AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (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.