Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hillman (poet)

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. Geschichte (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hillman (poet)[edit]

[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:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Being published in "Best Australian Poems" is not a significant award. Gnews comes up with a namesake actor. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- By adding few notable sources of his work, the article can be kept in main space. I saw he's published a few books. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a reference. I think there's just enough here to justify keeping this article, and due to the age of some of his works its possible there was additional coverage at the time which is now offline. NemesisAT (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is referenced in a collective authorship edition about Australian literature, that is a sign of recognition by the peers , therefore, the comment or argument above: "Fails WP:CREATIVE", seems not applicable here. Louie (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (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.