Deletion of David G. McAfee (2nd nomination)

Comment: WP:GNG issues and . If this is all you have after over 7 years of promotion then we need to wait for something that would really convincing. Has authored a few books and they have been mentioned along with his name, doesn't means we should create article about anyone who is mentioned by another person
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: clear failure of  and the article is apparently a promotion. Lack of coverage in independent references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: and start over with a lot of loving . I think McAfee probably is notable, but this article is overly sourced with references that aren't independent of the subject, and feels very promotional. There are, however, enough mainstream secondary sources which discuss his books which, in my opinion, make him pass  #1 as being cited by his peers. Some are already in the article itself. I haven't seen the older article, but this article has too many primary/non-independent-of-the-author/irrelevant sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: per nom. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Authors get coverage in reliable source for writing a book, but it has to be significant and more than a passing mention. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The subject is not |notable but seems to be using Wikipedia to establishing his notability in the real world, as evidenced by the |promotional way the article is written. Many of the sources in the article are either self-published, or uploaded on non-notable blogs, such as http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2017/01/book-review-atheist-answers-rational-responses-religious-questions/ this one. Other sources only have a passing mention and lack in-depth coverage about McAfee. Both the previous AfD on this subject, as well as the talk page, mention that "not unlikely that he wrote a lot of this article himself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROMOTION)

Comment: per . David G. McAfee meets none of the criteria that are required for notability. The sources in the article are non-notable websites from advocacy groups https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/09/why-we-should-teach-religion-to-children/. The one Washington Post article has only a passing mention https://live.washingtonpost.com/why-do-americans-hate-atheists-herb-silverman.html. As this article has been recreated and there are  concerns, it also might be wise to '''salt''' this article to prevent further promotional abuse
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:COI)

Comment: Several of the Delete voters are parroting one another and are highlighting what is a spurious rationale for their vote. The subject of this article does not need to meet the criteria of  ('''which is in the ADDITIONAL criteria section''') to be be notable, if he meets the criteria in the Basic Criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- which I and the other Keep votes maintain that he does. Also, the repeated use of "salt" by some people is quite obnoxious and hints at ulterior motives - not wanting an atheist activist to be the subject of an article '''no matter what he accomplishes'''. As I understand it, salting implies making it damn near impossible for a resurrection (pun intended) of the article no matter what future news-worthy accomplishments may occur for the subject. That seems just wrong on the face of it, and openly calling for that seems to me to display an ugly bias in some of the people voting to delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: as . Article it obvious PROMO.  Whether article creator is McAffee subject or  a fan, he doesn't help his case by overstuffing it with passing mentions.  I tried a g News separate search on  McAfee + athiest, and got not much https://www.google.com/search?q=McAfee+atheist&safe=active&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilqKyzlPnaAhVNNd8KHbNCAsoQ_AUICigB.   2 things could ould persuade me to switch, 1.) multiple book reviews in significant publications, and/or, INDEPTH, SIGCOV in the from of reported profiles of McAfee or substantive interviews  in significant publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:HEY)