Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Randell

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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Randall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journalist of little notability as per stated standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

   The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
   The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
   The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't see this person qualifying under any of those or even the wp:gng Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I do not know how prominent his textbook is, but it is one of the standard ones used by student journalists, it might be grounds for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, to quote you , I do not know how prominent his textbook is and it might be grounds for notability . could you add some links to support your opinions and if you support keeping thie article please attempt to improve it, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

potential sources
- Review of the book in the British Journalism Review [1]
- google scholar says in this paper [2] "Compare the first and second editions of David Randall's excellent synopsis on news reporting, The Universal Journalist. ... "
- google scholar says in this paper [3] "Most recently, this view has found powerful expression in David Randall's The Universal Journalist, in which he argues that the job of the journalist is, above all, to question, and then to"
- he is apparently cited in a number of other papers [4] [5] [6] in multiple languages [7]
I will see if there is anything in the visible part of the book review that can be added. Does anyone have access to the other journal pieces?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's cited here too as an authority, but it doesn't say much about him. This goes towards WP:AUTHOR, but doesn't provide anything to add to the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - with the combination of the book review in the prominent journal and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's recent work in adding a source identifying Randall as "a major thinker" in an area of philosophical debate, it seems he meets the criteria for several of the notability subcategories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TRPoD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ta for the work, though it has not changed my opinion of the subjects limited notability (perhaps wikipedia has low levels that I need to understand yet) has not changed through the addition of a book review and some promotional links but I am learning here that random minimal reviews and comments are support to keep a biography, he seems to have done nothing of citable note since 1998. Has he won any awards for his notable work, also, are you claiming he is a notable WP:Author or claiming WP:GNG note?Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.