Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kirtzman
IP user, you have not "proved" anything.  You can't just throw half-formed references into the ring and expect everyone else to track those down and evaluate them for you.  If you want to make an argument here, you have to actually make it and support it.  Because I happen to have access to Lexis-Nexis, though, I did look for these reviews.  Oddly enough, the most comprehensive news database in the world did not have full text for some of these.  The ones it did have (e.g., the ''Evening Standard'', the ''New York Post'') were not actually significantly about Kirtzman or his book, mentioning him only in passing or merely quoting him about Madoff.  Merely having reviews has little bearing on  anyway, which asks if the person {{tq|...has created ...a significant or well-known work...}}  To that end, I note that https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-scandal-yawn-madoff-books-a-bust/ this article states that Kirtzman's book sold all of 3,000 copies in the first month after its release. That is not a significant or well-known work.  This person fails the tests of  as well; where the coverage about him has been significant, it has not been independent and where the coverage has been independent it has not been significant
— User:Eggishorn, 06:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NAUTHOR||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)