Deletion of Greg Downs (writer)

Comment: As DiamondRemley39 notes, fixing an article like this is ''not'' a task that requires a total reset. It seems a stretch to say the article includes no usable content at all; see  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE||WP:DINC)

Comment: The reviews are mostly to dead links, but their existence suggests he meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Even if we assume the subject passes notability criteria (I think it's ambiguous; see above), the article would need to be remade from scratch due to a number of issues I addressed over on the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Greg_Downs_%28writer%29|the COI noticeboard. The gist of it is: borderline -worthy (see: ) content clearly written by the subject himself; poor reference formatting with no inline citations (have fun sorting that out); and terrible prose structure. The relatively short article is so far below the project's quality standards that bringing it up to them would probably take more time than rewriting it from scratch while utilizing the existing references (and more, if you can find them; I couldn't from a cursory search). Essentially, the article in its current form just isn't fit for Wikipedia, and there's no good quick fix, because the issues are foundational to the article itself. I have no qualms with keeping this article in my sandbox to help a future editor in creating a new article, but unless some Good Samaritan is willing to sit down and rewrite this into something passable, my vote is a clear delete, as having such a blatant, COI-ridden advertisement here is far more detrimental to the project than it is helpful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G11||WP:IBA)

Comment: meets  as there are multiple |reviews of his books (thanks {{u|DiamondRemley39}} for article improvements), btw one place i go for authors is WorldCat, if their books are in 3digit+ libraries it may be an indication that they're probably "well-known" with reviews out there, ie. https://www.worldcat.org/title/spit-baths-stories/oclc/62804656?referer=br&ht=edition ''Split Baths'': 300 libraries, https://www.worldcat.org/title/after-appomattox-military-occupation-and-the-ends-of-war/oclc/968494081?referer=br&ht=edition ''After Appomattox'': over 1000, occasionally reviews are also listed (Woohoo!:)) - https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Spit+Baths+Greg+Downs ''Split Baths'' 4 reviews, https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=after+appomattox+military+occupation+and+the+ends+of+war&qt=results_page ''After Appomattox'' 4 reviews, then more digging can occur
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:RS)

Comment: meets  - seems to be a legit author, with valid published titles, and evidence of reviews on the page, including an award one for a short article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)