Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Llewellyn (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. Raw totals, disregarding one likely puppet, are 4-2 Delete. Keep arguments are not strong: one indicates that having a single book published by a non-vanity press is sufficient for an article on the author (rather than the book), which seems dubious to me. The other points to a review in the online edition of the Guardian, but it is after all of the "briefly noted" variety, two paragraphs. And that is the only thread on which to hang the article - one brief notice. These arguments do not to me seem sufficiently convincing. Herostratus 04:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

David Llewellyn (author)

 * — (View AfD)

Non notable author, page used to promote non-notable book... also the page is a clear vanity addition.

The article was created by, who also recently edited the Donny Tourette article (punk rock frontman and current Big Brother contestant.) adding his non-notable opinion, with "David Llewellyn, in his Myspace blog, described Tourette's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as "another trustafarian wanker"

The address of the mentioned MySpace profile? MySpace.com/tidalwave1978, thus proving the article is a vanity addition by Llewellyn himself in an attempt to sell a book. - Deathrocker 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Author is very recent and does not much if any notability. Original edit to his first book listed it published in 2003 and with the current edit 2006. Publishing a book, especially your first one should be an unforgetable date (from article's history of edits) Ronbo76 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. That he once collaborated on the script for an Welsh indie film isn't an assertion of notability. yandman  16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author of a non-vanity book from an independent publishing house.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article on the book suggests that there have been multiple independent non-trivial reviews, though the references are not well sourced.  I went through 20 pages of ghits, and there were no non-trivial reviews.  The concerns over verifiability, notability and apparent conflict of interest make me support deletion.  At most, the articles on the author and his book should be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe the articles on the author and the book should be merged. I managed to find the Guardian review of the book on the Guardian website - http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1983074,00.html. It seems silly to remove the whole entry when there's a very good chance it'll have to be uploaded again some time in the future. Plus... it looks like it's already been tidied up a bit. benedictus237 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) — benedictus237 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well done in finding that review! I searched for the other one referenced in the book article, but couldn't locate it online.  If an actual citation for that review could be dredged up, I could support keeping a merged article as having multiple nontrivial sources.  Short of that, WP is not a crystal ball, so we don't know if the article would meet the guidelines in the future.  If you are confident, you could always preserve the contents in user space, pending further career developments.--Kubigula (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I say merge the articles. He's a first time author, but one who (so friends tell me) is gaining a bit of kudos in the UK. There's no need to have a separate author and novel page just yet. Mrsmajica 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Mrsmajica (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.