Talk:Reginald James MacGregor

Please do not delete the R J McGregor page. It contains a core list of books that will be difficult for researchers to reproduce, and it can serve as a beginning for a more in-depth article. McGregor's books have some level of significance in the history of children's books because some were among the earliest books published by Puffin. I was happy to come upon this list today as part of a current research project and plan to make contributions to the article later. (Justernest2 18:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC))


 * "I found him as part of a research project" is not a reason to retain an article. Please read the WP:DP page - I will remove the prod tag, but the page should be improved and provide reliable sources discussing his notability, otherwise I will take it to AFD.  The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is based on the topic's notability, not it's usefulness.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  WLU 18:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the author of this article and I am adding as much detail as I can, as I find it. The fact that so little can be found on R J Macgregor that it is difficult to cite references. Rightsofman 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but you must realize - the fact that you have such a hard time finding information on him could very well mean that he lacks notability and should therefore be deleted from wikipedia. You've probably got about a week before I nominate it for deletion, but if you can find reliable sources in the mean time I won't.  You really should look at the notability link above to ensure this article can pass the threshold.  The other thing you could do in case it is delted is move it to a subpage to expand at your leisure, and once you have a comprehensive article which clearly meets notability, re-create it.  If you do so, please read WP:NAME and pick a better name for the article - as is it should be moved to a proper page.  Also note that length does not determine if the article is notable or not, it's reliable secondary sources with non-trivial coverage.  Just a listing of his plays would be insufficient even were it a complete and very long list.  There must be a discussion of McGregor by reliable sources.  WLU 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article may seem safe now, 6 years later; but all the same, I think I'd better save a copy of this page while it's still here, as I'm also someone who is glad to have this list of books.


 * If those people trigger-happy with their delete buttons had had their way, presumably this information would now be lost for ever, and I would not be able to do this - and to what useful end? I often think Wikipedia's policy about this ought to be relaxed a little: if there are people who think the topic is not notable enough, not sufficiently sourced, etc., why don't they expand the article instead of just deleting it?  Or at least leave it for someone else to do, someone else who may know more about the topic and be able to do this?


 * I think knowledge is precious, and I personally think preserving it should trump short-sighted policies about notability, etc. If usefulness is not a sufficient criterion for keeping a Wikipedia page, then maybe it should become a sufficient criterion.


 * As an alternative, why not keep deleted pages in a separate section, where they are clearly marked as deleted because they don't meet the required criteria (whatever they be), but still available for people to read, on a "use at your own risk" basis? But please, let's not delete human knowledge that may be very rare, possibly to be lost for ever as a consequence. M.J.E. (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability
I still think the page fails WP:N, even with the new sources. The sources are just lists of works he has created, and do not have any depth to them. For three of the four 'references' I can't even find his name on the page and they appear to be references for the illustrator - that would establish notability of the illustrator, but not RJM. The sole reference that talks about RJM specifically is basically a library catalogue, which is pretty much the definition of trivial coverage. It's not a primary or secondary source, it's a tertiary source at best. He could have produced hundreds of works but if they had no impact on the artistic world, he may just not be notable. WLU 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The mere fact that he had a lot 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. The criterion of 'impact on the artistic world' would exclude any number of popular but non-'artistic' authors (examples might be Harold Robbins, Jilly Cooper, Zane Gray). Colonies Chris 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability of other authors is irrelevant, you are welcome to bring the issue up on other pages. The notability guidelines states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no significant coverage in any sources that I can find. If you can find reviews of modern presentations of his works, that establishes his notability, as would a biography or any other publication in reliable sources. It's possible that I'm being overzealous in my interpretation of the notability guidelines, I have apparently interpreted them against the beliefs of the community in the past, but the only way to know is to AFD it - I still don't think it's a notable topic. Furhter, the coverage by the topic and sources is trivial - the only thing that can be said based solely on the single source that's available is that RJM wrote 38 plays and here are the titles. WLU 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here appears to be that Reginald James McGregor is referenced elsewhere, including within Wikipedia, but in the more familiar form of R J McGregor. This lack of linkage stifles the perception of his notability. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I will try to make these linkages, but excuse me if I am clumsy. --Wesson135 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So a list of an author's works is "trivial coverage", is it? I am a book enthusiast, and often research authors, including very obscure ones on occasion - and, very often, a list of their works, especially if it appears to be complete, is what I am *most* looking for - so, from my point of view, this is far from trivial, and bibliographies of some authors are *extremely* rare and difficult to find.  The author who is the subject of this page, in fact, appears to be one of these - so I am glad the list of books is (so far, at least) still here.  I am saving it before some deletionist has their way and nukes it for ever.


 * I find it a bit disquieting that some Wikipedia editors seem to believe that a "mere" bibliography is trivial, and thus less worthy of preserving. M.J.E. (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Identity
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is uncertain regarding the identity of this "UK playwright and author of The Monkey-God's Secret (1924)" and R.J. McGregor whose sf short stories were published in the U.S. 1952 to 1954.

--P64 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)