Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee

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 fundamental point that there don't appear to be reliable sources about him as a person isn't really answered - in no way can the Washington Post mention be construed as a bibliographical source. Sources may go to showing notability of Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings, and the history can be provided to someone who wants to try that. Wily D 07:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McAfee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, as the only independent reporting about him are a blog and reader-responses on another blog. His other claims to notability are being a contributor to apparently non-notable journals (albeit of notable organizations) and even his bio-ref is selfpublished and cites or clone this here WP article. The other claim is a book with some claimed in-depth criticisms, but this would even fail if reframed as an article about the book per WP:BKCRIT as the supposed reviews are blogs similar non-reliable sources. I'm not well-versed in the atheism genre, but overall seems to be WP:TOOSOON even within that world per WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The nominator's writing style implies that Mr. McAfee wrote the article. Since I contributed significantly to the article, I can assure you that I am not Mr. McAfee. Secondly, since I purchased his book on Amazon in researching atheism, and I am extremely well versed in the "genre" (about as silly of a descriptive of atheism as I've ever heard, it is a rejection of religion because of the total lack of evidence of the existence of god), Mr. McAfee is well known in the atheist community and has published two books on rejecting Christianity. Several links were removed by well-meaning editors, so I guess I've got to put them back so that we have the perfect article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His claimed notability is derived substantially from literary works, so that is the "genre" among which his work could be compared (rather than, say, the world's scholarly writers as a whole, or writers well known in to lay-public). DMacks (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced some of the blog "sources" with reliable sources. As a young author, with two published books, many of his reviews are bloggers in the atheist community. However, there are some more published atheist magazines which have reviewed his books. Things are changing in how authors are becoming notable, Wikipedia may want to enter the modern world. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "as the only independent reporting about him are a blog and reader-responses on another blog" that is not true, we have a Washington Post link, which is as notable news agency as one can get, that specifically mentions Mr.McAfee. As SkepticalRaptor said before me the author is already well-recognized in the atheist community. For the record I too am not Mr. McAfee. ^{Epicurus B. talk} 10:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that reference. It contains two questions posted by anonymous readers (therefore WaPo doesn't get credit for chosing to mention the topic) and the responses do not appear to give much or any substantial info about our article-subject. It supports that an event happened involving the person, not an in-depth report about him or it. And the response appears to contradict part of the claim WP is using it to support (but perhaps the key part that makes this part a potential claim of notability). DMacks (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RS in terms of WP:BIO just doesn't exist to support this one. We must follow the policies set forth in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK as well. The subject of this article fails on all counts. The required, secondary sourcing is nonexistent--instead, we have his own website as a source, which is never permitted in terms of WP:RS. Neither can his self-published books be used as sources, as they themselves are non-notable according to WP:BK, having received zero media attention. Also have a look at WP:SPS to learn more about self-published sources. These are just a few of the WP policies that argue for the deletion of this article. What this youngster writes about, and how well-known he may be among fellow atheists, has nothing to do with WP notability policies and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Qworty (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I echo everything Qworty said, and add that the article describes him as a 'Religious Studies Scholar', despite him having no graduate education nor academically recognised work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.7.112 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Epicurus' and SkepticalRaptor's points. Notable in the atheist community, evidently a significant/notable author in the subject. Royal Mate1 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.