Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan McNair

:{{la|Duncan McNair}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duncan_McNair Stats])

:({{Find sources|Duncan McNair}})

BLP, unreferenced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines either as a lawyer or as an author. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

His books are very similar to the Timewaster letters which all have individual pages in wikipedia as well as an author page. I'm new to Wikipedia let me know if there is anything important lacking that I have omitted and need to add. Thanks - IanBrumpton (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

: Apologies Ian, nothing personal - I hadn't realised you were so new - just saw an unreferenced BLP. I see the article has been updated slightly - personally, I would say that some of the claims still need references but will happily withdraw this nomination if sources are found and notability proven. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Cleaned up the page some, and added some refs (didn't bother with inline cites yet). Able to find 4 solid refs, 2 are offline but the Evening Post is in-depth about the author. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help tidying up the page! IanBrumpton (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The "King of Spoofs" is a really good piece. Off-line but access at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request Resource Request]. Three reviews is minimal for WP:AUTHOR #3 but I think it's enough in this case. The other sources also add to WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable lawyer; the books are barely worth a mention: ''The Morello Letters', is in only 35 libraries; the follow-up vol, in only 2. If that's the total holdings despite the reviews, the book are not enough for notability for anyone. However, the legal work is, and it is well sourced. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (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.