Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Alexander McCracken


 * 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 delete. Consensus that GNG/NAUTHOR were not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Grant Alexander McCracken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AUTHOR  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think the page should stay. Other well-known members of Australia's and Melbourne's poetry scene also have entries on Wikipedia. Grant Alexander McCracken was a well-known personality in Melbourne, Australia, and I feel that his page will be a useful source for anyone looking him up. I will provide credible sources and hopefully others will too. He was a published writer, a exhibited painter and there are many article from reputable sources written about him, which I hope to include in the entry at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand why Authorship was questioned, but I can guarantee the entry meets the below criteria: WP:AUTHOR"  WP:POET  Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:  The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - yes  The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - yes  The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - yes  The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - yes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how he passes any of these, espesically without reasoning.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will add more sources and you will see what I mean, I am sorry that creating this Wikipedia entry has angered you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emuwren (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This hasn't angered me. Remeber to keep to the subject, rather than commenting on other editors (See HELP:AFD). You can add more sources to favour the article; you have the entire week to sort it out.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing me with the right way to sign posts in talk pages. If his entry doesn't meet the standards for an entry, which I understand, then other pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelton_Lea should also be considered for deletion for not meeting the same standards. I will add more sources within the week, thank you for your patience. Emuwren (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, It doesn't look like this was passed through by WP:AFC, so it may be better to move to a draftspace rather than outright delete.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 12:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It is sad that the subject passed away recently.  Unfortunately there is very little to be found about the subject.  The subject has published one book, and gets a few mentions.  For a "character" in Melbourne, I would have thought there would have been at least one mention in the The Age, but it seems there is nothing to be found for certainly the last several years.  Unless the article author can produce several good sources, I cannot see how the subject can come anywhere near GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was able to find a few mentions of McCracken in The Age through a Newspapers.com search, but no significant coverage—just listings for performances at local Melbourne venues. McCracken's one published poetry collection is not widely held by libraries (see WorldCat), and I couldn't find any reviews of it. Basically, I'm can't find any evidence that WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG are met. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR LibStar (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR, WP:MILL, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Literally millions of people have had their poetry published and their artwork exhibited. Unless it attracts attention in good sources, it's not notable. The obit appears to be a paid notice. May he rest in peace. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2020 (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.