Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood


 * 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 keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Heywood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fail to see how this person meets WP:AUTHOR and, more importantly, WP:GNG. The only source is credited to his own website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You sure? I mean WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and even a quick gNews search, google  or JSTOR search  indicates that notability is probable.  Looks to me like someone just needs to make time to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't argue for or against deletion, but I did find where he's mentioned here and here in academic texts. I know that Google Scholar hits can be wonky, but there do seem to be quite a few people citing his work. That said, it's debatable whether or not this is just a sign that he could be used as a reliable source or if he would pass WP:NPROF. (On a side note, NPROF is something that's very different from NAUTHOR or other notability guidelines so in all fairness it's a little harder to find sourcing unless you have access to academic databases.)  Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR fails WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Heywood's best-known book in its 6th Edition, has massive circulation, appears on university politics course reading lists. edit made by: 2001:8003:3916:6800:6912:89a:b443:f8a5
 * WP:HEY, I did a little sourcing. London Times describes his textbooks as best-sellers; certainly several of them have gone through multiple editions over many years.  I can also see that his textbooks are widely cited in other textbooks, news articles, and academic articles.  I do think that someone needs to take a closer look at this one, despite the fact that a writer of bestselling textbooks is not quite WP:PROF, nor is he the usual WP:AUTHOR.  Note that at least two of his textbooks were reviewed in the Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that Nom gives no evidence of having run WP:BEFORE, merely referencing sources already in article.  However, clicking on the search bar shows numerous citations of scholars work in scholar, JSTOR, books and some news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I note it is rather difficult to provide physical evidence of me searching for the subject. Perhaps Gregory could try not insinuating that I have overlooked this step?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you did run WP:BEFORE, although many Noms do take a moment to explain their decision to bring a BIO to AfD despite having found a great deal of potential sourcing. I am asking you to walk us through the reasons why you regard as non-notable a subject who is the author of multiple books that sell well enough to have run through 3, 4, or 5 editions of textbooks that are still in print and being assigned many years after they were first published.  And also to explain your reasoning in bringing to AfD an author who is regularly cited in scholarly books and articles.  Some examples if that can be found just by clicking on the toolbar: "Political theorist Andrew Heywood (2009) encourages us to think of multiculturalism as a broad ..." ; "Or, as Andrew Heywood gives an interpretation of Mill's argument: "Mill distinguished clearly between..." ; "According to the political theorist Andrew Heywood, both terms have since been mainly used to refer to three different expressions of conservative thought: opposition to any change or innovation so as to preserve the existing order in the name ..." ."  I do see that he is notable, if at all, for writing bestselling textbooks on political theory, not as a political theorist.  I am, however, persuaded that it is possible to attain notability in virtually any field of endeavor.   And so I ask you to consider whether an argument can be made for notability based on Heywood's impact as the author of demonstrably popular and widely cited textbooks?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Shalor (Wiki Ed), EC Racing, John Pack Lambert, I would appreciate your thoughts if you have a moment to think about this question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to refrain since this is a work account, but I will tag - he's very good at judging this sort of thing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a gBooks search on: "According to Andrew Heywood" .  The first 7 hits are on respectable looking poli sci books that are not the books I and other cite above.  It gives a quick sense of the extent to which he a sort of standard source on the baseline academic consensus within political theory.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The subject is a secondary school teacher and author of school textbooks rather than an academic, so I don't think WP:PROF really applies. Similarly textbooks tend to be huge sellers so I don't think the circulation of his books is particularly informative – the dispartity between it and the small number of citations just goes to show that circulation doesn't automatically equal coverage. The reviews of his books in the TES give me pause, but I'd have to be convinced that it's possible to write an encyclopaedia article that says something beyond: "Andrew Heywood is a writer of textbooks. They have been positively reviewed." –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:PROF as the author of widely used textbooks--the extent of their use can be seen from the very high library count in Worldcat . (Would also meet WP:AUTHOR, as the textbooks are quite obviously best-sellers--as the references show as well. In fact,anyone in the humanities of book-dependent social sciences who meets WP:PROF will very clearly meet AUTHOR, which is a very weak standard) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to DGG and Shalor for their thoughtful comments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If this person is notable, we should be able to say something more substantial about his background.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a grade Z stub, but the author is a recognized expert in his field and is the author of multiple basic textbooks on political science and ideology produced by major publishers, some of which have went through multiple editions. Ergo a pass through WP:PROF. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the points in 122.172.215.246 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2017 (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.