Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg McLaren

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. While Newimpartial is apparently referring to WP:NAUTHOR, Aoziwe's 'week keep' rationale is probably a stronger rationale that matches the consensus I view in this Afd, especially with the nominator not opposing any of the keep rationales. If anyone, including the nominator, wishes more clarification, please chat me up on my talk page. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McLaren[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. suspiciously created by a single purpose editor of the same name as article. No awards , no notable publications LibStar (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My initial search seems to indicate a non trivial amount of and rather varied references to this subject, even though not of the outstanding type. There does appear to be sufficient to support a more in depth article and a better referenced one. Agree that there are no awards, etc., that I can see at the moment, but the subject just needs to pass WP:GNG, and WP:BLP, not any specific SNG. At the moment I am going with WP:NEXIST. So what if it was originally created by an SPA as an autobio. If it passes GNG, is verifialbe, and is NPOV, then it can stay. Aoziwe (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any poet who manages to get actual third-party reviews meets WP:BLP notability as far as I'm concerned. It's a tough row to hoe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2017 (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.