Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Alexander (author)


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG's argument is very, very strong, which was deciding factor for me to close it as a delete completely against the numbers (if the number-counters are interested).

David Alexander (author)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert subject's notability beyond listing all the books written by the author. No references or external links are provided to substantiate any awards, press coverage or significant impact author has had with his collective body of work. Ozgod (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Author's notability is assured by looking at the publishers who have put out his books. Needs additional sourcing and wikifying, but he definitely satisifies notability as far as I'm concerned. Lack of sources is not necessarily a reason to AFD the article. You should added one of the citation tags to the article instead to draw attention to the fact it needs improvement. 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment if the subject is in fact important, lets see some evidence of it, rather than a discussion of what evidence there ought to be. DGG (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination is, per above, clear violation of the deletion nomination rules - nominator shows lack of judgement - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - author seems notable enough - the article could do with some more assertions of this though. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find real reviews, not the blurbs given in the article. --I checked for library holdings--the 3 non fiction books here are held in 86, 52, and 22  US libraries, respectively, which is remarkably low for popular non-fiction. The two novels listed are in 56 and 33 libraries, equally low for science fiction. His latest, USMC, only 55.  Not a notable author. The article says they're respected, but I see no evidence of that.  David is right, that In the absence of evidence we don't know whether or not he's notable, so  I've looked for evidence, and this is what I found.  DGG (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2008 (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.