Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald James MacGregor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Neil ム 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reginald James MacGregor

Reginald James MacGregor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The page fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:N - there is a single source which only lists his works, which were produced between the 1920s and 1960s, and have apparently not been produced since. From my interpretation of WP:BIO, volume of work is not a criteria for notability unless I am mis-reading it. In additon, all text on the page barring the list of works is unsourced and looks a lot like WP:OR without one. All of the external links found in the text are to the illustrators, which do not even appear to link to illustrations of MacGregor's books. Ultimately there is no significant coverage. It has met none of the criteria for WP:BIO, particularly none of the list of creative professionals (not widely cited, did not originate a new concept, no well-known work or body of work, and not a monument, exhibition, subject of critical attention or permanent collection. At minimum, to remain on wikipedia it would require significantly more sources than the entry in a library catalogue. WLU 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note the opening sentence: "Little is yet known of Reginald James MacGregor". I'm pretty sure he's dead, so our chances of expanding the page further are probably minimal. WLU 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. WP:BIO should be applied carefully when dealing with historical persons as online resources can be extremely limited. In this instance MacGregor (or McGregor, both spellings are used, and usually with his initials R.J.) seems to have been a notable children's author of the interwar era and notability does not expire. Trim the WP:OR and leave as a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. :The mere fact that he had a long list of works published and re-published by well-known reputable publishers, and selling in large quantities over a long period, is in itself enough to establish notability, in my opinion. It doesn't matter that he's largely forgotten now, he was undoubtedly significant to many thousands of people over three decades. The 'single source' is the catalogue of the British Library, which really ought to be authoritative enough for Wikipedia. The fact that it's difficult to find more personal information about him shouldn't prevent WP having a basic article about him. On a similarly strict interpretation of the difficulty of finding personal information, we would have to delete the article about Homer, for example. And a similarly strict interpretation of criteria such as 'widely cited, originated new concept etc' would exclude any number of hugely successful but not critically well regarded authors (Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, Jeffrey Archer, to name but a few). I agree that what there is in the article about him personally needs to be sourced, however. Why waste time and effort arguing about a small but useful article like this one? The time would be better spent deleting the many many unquestionably stupid or useless articles out there. This isn't one of them. Colonies Chris 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The coverage given by the British Library is trivial - it's just a list.
    • With current sources, all you can reliably say about him is that he wrote these works.
    • There is not a single reliable, secondary source providing information on him. If there were, I would not have AFD'ed the article.
    • Print sources are valid, but no-one has volunteered them.
    • Other articles don't apply. Further:
      • Homer has multitudes of secondary sources discussing him and his works.
      • Robbins has secondary sources [1], as does Susann [2], Archer has an article in The Guardian about him [3] and all three have had their works turned into films (Archer, Susann, Robbins) . WP:BIO does apply to all four and all four pass.
      • There's no sources saying he sold vast volumes of works or that his works were re-issued. If this is the case, provide a source saying so.
    • WP:WAX - that other articles are problematic in no way impacts the deletion discussion of this one. If anyone turns up equally flawed articles, they should nominate them for deletion. As I have done. The argument that other articles do it has been recognized as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions because they do not address the reasons for the page being nominated in the first place. WP:NOT and WP:USEFUL both have thing to say about 'useful' pages - mere usefulness isn't encyclopedic. Stupid and useless articles can and do exist on wikipedia - Paris Hilton, Knife switch, Ottawa, Ontario numbered roads.
    • Reginald James McGregor does turn up many more articles on google that relate to him as a playwright, but I still can't find anything substantial. I can't even find when and where he was born and died, and if the lead is any indication, it's unlikely that I or anyone else will ever turn anything up. WLU 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Wikipedia notability criteria for people depend heavily on secondary sources. With great devotion, and a lot of library work, someone might be able to come up with secondary sources on McGregor but there is no guarantee of success. I would not object to re-creation of the article if they were ultimately found. The article compares McGregor's novels with the work of Enid Blyton but she is way, way better known. EdJohnston 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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.