Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Croft


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adam Croft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think he's a notable author. He fails the basic test that his works are listed by library databases. Only one is, and it lists To Close for Comfort as being in a single library. He's a self-published author, and claims to be notable as such, and also claims to be notable for showing that a self published author can be notable. It's true that a very few have been. It's not true that he's one of them.

The current version of the article was written or revised   entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor; I don;t know who wrote the earlier versions, but they are also not salvageable, because there's no fundamental notable to be salvaged. The promotional manner of the writing is what you;d expect--it contains what the subject wants to say about himself. If I am wrong, and he actually is notable, the article would still have to be rewritten entirely, by someone who knows and respects our standards.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete / WP:BLOWITUP - what a horrible mess. The "sources" include blogs, user profiles (created by the subject) and the barest of passing mentions. With those removed we have a series of articles (from reliable sources) but most of those are coverage by the subject (of the self-publishing industry) rather than coverage of the subject. Lots of quotes from him, not a lot about him. There's a feint chance the subject might be notable but the article is a horrific jumble of promo-spam and dishonest referencing masquerading as solid, verfiable content. Stalwart 111  05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've cleaned the article up and removed all of the blatantly unusable sources. Everything I removed was either an unusable blog, a primary source, or a merchant link. The original version can be seen here. If DGG didn't already say that this was by a suspected sockpuppet and confirmed paid editor, I'd have suspected that this was a case of paid editing. I'll see what I can find, but offhand it doesn't look spectacular. Most of his coverage is local and therefore depreciated, since it's in their best interests to portray a local citizen in a more positive light in these circumstances. The Guardian link is good, but he's not the focus of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. When it comes to coverage that actually focuses on Croft, all we have are local sources. I always view those with suspicion since those don't always do the best fact checking when it comes to coverage, as it wouldn't behoove them to say something negative about something seemingly good that a native did. The Guardian article doesn't have Croft as the focus of the article, which is about self-publishing in general. As for the claims of selling well, that doesn't guarantee notability- it just makes it more likely that you'll get coverage. I was hoping to find more coverage due to the radio play, but there's nothing out there about it and it seems like it's one of many radio plays that get made and sink into obscurity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost no sign of notability, the Guardian mention being useful but slight. The sockpuppetry and paid editing are distasteful aspects; presumably other articles such as Danielle Nierenberg are similar (many refs of doubtful quality). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails all our tests. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Unless self-published works have achieved significant sales they are NN. It follws that their author is also NN (unless for other reasons).  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.