Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Radford


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Radford

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This seems like a vanity article. While it asserts some minor notability (6 books published, wrote for the Guardian), these books do not seem to be especially notable in themselves, having no notable sources discuss them, and a search of the Guardian website reveals no articles written by the subject. I believe the subject fails to meet notability guidelines; the subject is not the topic of multiple secondary published sources, and has no other assertions of notability. The main users working on the article was, which is - at the very least - suggestive of a conflict of interest, and an IP address which removed the proposed deletion tag and a host of templates highlighting issues with the article. fish &amp;karate 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I haven't found anything that would suggest that Radford is notable enough for an article. He doesn't seem to really have anything that pushes him up enough to warrant an article. Just publishing books or writing for someone isn't an automatic ticket to notability, I'm afraid. There also aren't any articles written about him, nor are there really any big vanity/promotional pieces either. Most of the ghits bring back other people or links to pages where you can purchase the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. jradfor1 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2011 GMT — jradfor1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Andy Radford is an author who has written 6 books for The Crowood Press. On eof his books is the best selling book in its field. Please feel free to contact Ken Hathaway at The Crowood Press to confirm this. He was a staff writer for a while with Country Smallholding, and his articles written for the guardian were written a long time ago, over 15 years. He is more notible than many of the people who have articles on this site. Please define 'notible person.' I have seen pages on wikipedia for people who have failed at the first audition to shows such as the X factor. Are they considered notible as they have been on television. I have been on television, does this count? If this article is removed it will be a mistake and i will complain. A guide to dry stone walling sold so well it has been reprinted several times and a DVD companion has been made. Reviews of his books have appeared in magazines etc. Hence being talked about in other formes of media. However, if after all these arguments you are still not convinced that the author of 6 books, on the best in it's field, and a dvd companion is not a notible person, remove the article as I say your selection criteria is flaud. — 92.13.60.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:03, 8 November 2011‎ (UTC).
 * Comment: Putting out multiple books and a DVD does not automatically give you notability. You have to prove through multiple independent and reliable sources that Radford is a notable author in his field. Being on television doesn't guarantee notability either. There are plenty of people who have been in or made shows that do not meet notability guidelines. You have to prove that he's a bestseller through links that are not put out by the author, his company, or any sort of promotional or vanity links. Even then, being a bestseller doesn't usually guarantee you notability unless it's in a high profile venue such as the NYT Bestseller list. As far as other articles go, odds are that those articles don't warrant an entry on here and if you see any articles that you don't think passes notability guidelines, please feel free to put those up for deletion or bring them to the attention of someone who frequently participates in discussions. Saying "that stuff exists" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) means that Radford deserves an article is not a valid argument. As far as defining notability goes, please check out WP:GNG,WP:BIO, and WP:AUTHOR. They provide an excellent definition of what passes notability guidelines. Please understand that none of this is done to be hostile or ugly, this is just the way wikipedia works. Radford might seem notable to you as an individual (especially if you are closely involved with him or are the author himself), but that doesn't mean that he's notable as far as Wikipedia goes. Believe me, there's a lot of people I think should be on here that don't qualify under notability guidelines but that's just how the system here works and I have to go along with it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no third party independent coverage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:21, 14 November 2011 (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.