Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Granier

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) JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Granier

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

PROD contested without reason. Appears to fail the general notability guidelines, as all the sources and EL in the article all are primary or shop sources, with no real articles about the author. A Google search mainly reveals boilerplate author biog, and nothing about them. Mdann52 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are referenced to support any of the claims.--Rpclod (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the GNG and I am still uncertain as to what constitutes 'real articles' about an author. Do reviews not count? And what are 'shop sources'? Is it a requirement that every author needs to have feature articles written about him/her to be considered notable? Markgranier1 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons given for this deletion are: (1) that 'the EL in the articles are all 'boilerplate' and 'primary or shop sources' and (2) it 'fails general notability guidelines' (GNG) This seems strange, as one of the searches (in High Beam Research) listed by the editors themselves turns up two reviews of my books in an established newspaper, The Irish Times. There are other reviews listed on my current publisher (Salmon Poetry) website, which gives the sources and dates. You can check them here: http://www.salmonpoetry.com/bookshop-search.php. I do understand that Salmon is partly a 'shop' source, but the reviews here are neither shop nor boilerplate, nor primary for that matter. These are established outlets: The Irish Times, Poetry Ireland Review, etc. Apart from my recently published fourth collection, Haunt (March, 2015), all of my previous collections has been reviewed at least twice, and these were good reviews. Maybe that doesn't count as significantly notable in Wikipedia, and if that's the case, fair enough. But to dismiss them as boilerplate/primary/shop is simply incorrect, as are assertions that 'claims' don't hold up (neither the originator of the article, Chris Emery, nor my own updates make any claims as such; they are merely stating facts: publications, prizes, etc.). As I said, I am willing to accept that the article on me might warrant deletion if it fails GNG, but I still don't understand the reasons given for this failure. I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify these. Yours sincerely, Markgranier1 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for getting back Mdann. Yes, Salmon has posted the positive reviews but there are no negative ones that I know. Not that every review is completely non-critical; McAuliffe's, in the Irish Times, is probably the most critical my work ever received: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/searing-sketches-of-a-suburban-childhood-1.583325 Markgranier1 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of boilerplate sources, I was more discussing about what I could find on the wider web - not what was included in the article. In terms of the salmonpoetry site, the issue is that it doesn't talk about the subject as much as we need - all it says to us unfortunately is that you have written the book (it appears, from a look, to only host positive reviews). Mdann52 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Keep This article may simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a review of one of his books of poems from The Irish Times. I think he'll pass WP:CREATIVE. I went to his talk page and requested that he post links to reviews, discussions of his work. Sources do seem ot exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no poet, but I am able to access Poetry Ireland Review on JSTOR. Search his name and you get 397 results. Mostly, these are poems of Granier's published by the Review. But also reviews of his books. Granier is clearly a notable Irish poet. Changed my !Vote to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granier is a notable Irish poet as demonstrated by E.M.Gregory. Reggiegal (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see also the sources on Writing:ie Here:[1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2015 (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.