Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnell Alexander


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Donnell Alexander

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article, which appears to be an autobiography, offers no evidence of the notability of this person, and the only source cited is of doubtful reliability. RolandR (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - No rationale for deletion given. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I submitted this AfD by accident, and was unable to delete it. I subsequently added a PROD, with reasons, but it was deleted by another editor since this AfD already existed. RolandR (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you add your deletion rationale here, I'll retract the SK vote. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rationale added from  Theopolisme  ( talk )  20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (ec) Biographical (apparently autobiographical) article, in which no evidence has been offered of the notability of this person. The article originally had no sources at all; I tagged it as a BLP:PROD, but the original editor removed this tag, which is not permitted. RolandR (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons stated by RolandR. Dazedbythebell (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have added information and links that support notoriety.Donnyshell1 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Donny, you're a journalist. So, re-write it like it's someone else, not your good self. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. At all. Donnyshell1 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a problem. That problem is Wikipedia's guidelines for people. That said, I am doing the best I can to improve the English language Wikipedia article about you.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE as author ("Ghetto Celebrity" is not an influential or well-known work) and as a filmmaker (Does one short - even if it placed in film festivals - make a notable career?).  Also fails #2 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
 * Re: the "Dock Ellis" short - it might possibly help fulfill #1 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The subject being notable enough on this one claim seems somewhat problematic to me. Along with Neille Ilel he interviewed Ellis in 2008 for American Public Media/NPR.  The short was then made/drawn/produced by James Blagden for NoMasTV in 2009 from the aired-interview.  Alexander & Ilel are credited as "Narration Produced & Directed by...", so their on-screen credits are stating that they were part of the production/pre-production team, but it appears they were not directly responsible for creating the short itself since it was "Drawn & Animated by James Blagden" and "Produced by Christopher Isenberg".  It is possible that the 'Dock Ellis' film itself could be notable enough for a Wikipedia article (2million+ YouTube hits, numerous write-ups, won various film festival awards, etc) but I am not convinced that Alexander himself is.
 * FYI - the Yahoo News/"Dock Ellis"/one-of-best-baseball-movies-of-all-time statement is from a Nov 12, 2009 "Big League Stew" column by David Brown found here. Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with Shearonink. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (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.