Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Alexander (author) (second nomination)


 * 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. The necessary improvements have not been made in the past week. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

David Alexander (author)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a repost of a promotional article about a thriller writer that has already been deleted after AfD. As far as I am aware there are no significant changes. The references are all to material that the author himself has written, such as his website and his books - nothing independent. Did Ken Kesey really tell him he was an important writer? Let's see the proof. Apart from lots of assertions of his brilliance and importance there's nothing to actually prove it. The article's author has been given ample time to correct these problems and hasn't done so. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. andy (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous AfD was in 2008, content has changed enough to be ineligible for G4. I am also working with the article's author via OTRS to improve the article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was also speedied last December as a repost. When it was reposted yet again I too attempted to work with the author but simply got abused (see User talk:Datawatch/David Alexander (author)). I userfied it for him and I can't see that he's taken the bother to do very much to improve it. The previous AfD nomination said "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", and that seems to be as true now as then. At that time DGG failed to find any evidence that the books were even popular, let alone notable, and this is still the case. andy (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The author simply doesn't still understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, but I'm hoping that correspondence via OTRS can allow him to see issues with the page, and if he doesn't address them, deletion is fine with me. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is simply too poorly sourced and overly-promotional for it to remain in article space, and notability has not been established since deletion at the last AfD. As Fetchcomms is in dialogue with the subject via OTRS, I will be happy to change my opinion should reliable sources be found and notability established prior to this discussion being closed. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is not substantially different from the one deleted in the earlier AfD. None of the references are real references (links to works by the author, ISBN numbers, and 'author's papers' don't count as references). Unless something changes because of the OTRS dialogue, the article should be deleted. --rgpk (comment) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (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.