Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Rattenbury

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rattenbury

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG nothing found in a before search. The sources are too weak. 1 is his agent's page and the other is a "local boy done good " story from a local paper. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a much deeper before search yields some significant critical reviews of his stage adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice (novel)#Adaptations. It sucked! but that does not mean he is not notable.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. He may not be often mentioned but his list of TV credits is also to long to ignore and has generated some critical reviews.[8][9]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These would be useful as sources for the play but they barely mention Rattenbury. none of these sources are sufficient to meet GNG as it is not in-depth coverage of the subject. and they just add to the fact that he does not meet NAUTHOR as none of the following criteria are filled

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. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) 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.

He is a jobbing television script writer that has made a foray into theatre on a piece that was a failure but none of the reviews really talk about the adaptation just a couple of lines ...without fixing the stop/start nature of a script that suggests a screenplay awkwardly adapted for the boards. or this one the strain is beginning to show in Andrew Rattenbury's screen- -to-stage adaptation or this one Andrew Rattenbury's stage version of this scenario seems more interested in cars than in most of the characters.. I can't really see how adapting a screen play to theatre for this piece can be described as creating a significant work as all the reviews panned it and were barely interested by the writing. There is not enough in-depth coverage and this is the acid test to passing WP:BASIC. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. This was the only significant biographical secondary source I could find, though it hardly pushes this article past the threshold of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has been explained so eloquently above, he does not meet the notability guidelines of writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Dom. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fFails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2018 (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.