Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Peter Stroh
There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion: '''(1)''' the general notability guideline () which requires significant and in depth coverage from multiple independent sources, or '''(2)''' the alternative criteria at . The subject pretty comprehensively fails both at this point. I have not been able to find any independent coverage of the subject himself. I did find one pre-publication review of his forthcoming book in ''Publisher's Weekly'' http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-60358-580-4 here, but that isn't nearly sufficient for either an article on the book or on its author. Things may change if the book turns out to make a considerable impact accompanied by significant '''independent''' coverage of its author. At that point, and only at that point, should the article be recreated. The obvious COI and promotionalism are not in themselves a rationale for deletion. Promotionalism can be fixed, but the non-notability cannot
— User:Voceditenore, 10:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)