Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mackmin


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Mackmin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't see how this person meets WP:AUTHOR or any other criterion of notability. Yes, he helped found a poetry magazine – on which we have a very poorly-referenced article – and his name often comes up in conjunction with that. But where is the in-depth coverage in independent sources, or any indication of notability independent of the magazine? The only sources in the article at present are his publisher and his magazine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article fails at WP:N. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Apart from being the founder of a magazine and has been given coverage, he has produced works that have been the subject of a number of reviews , the article may possibly qualify under WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The references show not indication of notability:
 * 1) not really a page at all
 * 2) self-published source, does not count towards notability.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Where he is mentioned the coverage is either not significant or the sources are just intra-industry aggrandising. I can't see enough to suggest notability from RS. The book reviews don't lend much, if anything; you can pay for reviews off Kirkus for instance. Cesdeva (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Where he is mentioned the coverage is either not significant or the sources are just intra-industry aggrandising. I can't see enough to suggest notability from RS. The book reviews don't lend much, if anything; you can pay for reviews off Kirkus for instance. Cesdeva (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2018 (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.