Deletion of Thomas Smith (author)

Comment: I note from the above discussion that the article previously had many more sources, I assume that the ones remaining in the current version represent the best of what was available. None of the eight sources presented meet the requirements listed at  - reliable, intellectually independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As a disclaimer, I was drawn to this discussion because it was brought up at ANI and the BLP noticeboard. After reviewing the sources on the page I agree that none are sufficient to establish notability, either they are not in |reliable sources or are passing mentions. His name being so common it is tough to do an independent search but I tried combining the name with both leather and BDSM and could not find any sources that would confer notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Whew. That's a prime example of  if I've ever seen one. Long story short, none of the sources are usable as far as showing notability goes. The best one out of the bunch is one where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. As far as the other sources go, they're either primary sources, routine notifications that he'd be attending or judging somewhere, posts on sites that Wikipedia wouldn't consider reliable, or notifications that he's won awards or held positions that aren't really the type that Wikipedia would consider of any big note. Most awards or positions aren't, when you get down to it. I like to say that about 5% of all awards ever given to anyone, anywhere are important enough to give notability and of that group, less than 1% are important enough to where they give absolute notability. None of these awards/positions fit into either category. Now I understand that despite the whole "Fifty Shades" phenomenon, BDSM as a whole is still relatively uncovered as far as mainstream stuff goes. However, that doesn't mean that it is exempt from having to find reliable sources. This guy just isn't notable enough to merit an entry here. There's enough to show that he could be a reliable source, but being a reliable source and passing notability guidelines aren't the same thing and he's not a big enough of a figure to be considered notable on that end either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:OVERCITE)

Comment: Despite , severe lack of substantial mention in multiple independent reliable sources. The few reliable sources are far from substantial and support trivial or tangential information. Nothing worth saving or merging
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: Subject fails  and any other measure of .  Claims of prominence within an obscure subculture don't cut it despite vociferous advocacy (perhaps idolatry) of ''Mr. Kentucky Leather''  by the article's sole author.  Claims of no  with this  author are extremely dubious.  I recommend an early close of this debate under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:COI||WP:SPA||WP:SNOW)