Deletion of John McBride (photographer)

Comment: WP:N|Not notable, also for what it's worth a clear case of |conflict of interest, and . This is one more example of a problem that comes up in AFD time and again - confusing evidence of output with evidence of notability. Any journalist, illustrator, editor, backing singer, etc. etc. will generate a certain amount of oogle|Google hits (and even the occasional minor award) simply by virtue of being active, working professionals. Multiple ghits, however, do not of themselves support an individual's notability. The core policy is absolutely clear, "significant coverage" is required for notability, which means sources that "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". That is, several authors in reliable sources need to have considered the individual sufficiently important to warrant an article or two about them as the primary subject, not simply mention the individual in the context of something related, such as an exhibition or news incident. Articles such as this, when sourced at all, are inevitably lists of random mentions of an individual's output containing few if any references to coverage of the individual as a worthy subject by him or herself, which on a related note means that they fall into the problem of |original research as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NOTMYSPACE||WP:G||WP:OR)

Comment: Although not exactly an article that we could demonstrate as the criteria of  incarnate, the article still meets the criteria by receiving significant critical attention and has played a role in creating significant work. He seems to be notable within his own field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)