Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly McGrann


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Molly McGrann

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG (WP:AUTHOR). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites (her author website, her Spotify, etc). The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, England,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: possibly notable:
 * Selected by the BBC Radio 4 as a read-aloud audio program. Reader: Susan Jameson
 * Book reviews:
 * Hibbert, Katharine. "FICTION-Exurbia-Molly McGrann." The Times Literary Supplement 5423 (2007): 19.
 * I found no substantially in-depth coverage in reliable sources about Ms. McGrann herself.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hibbert, Katharine. "FICTION-Exurbia-Molly McGrann." The Times Literary Supplement 5423 (2007): 19.
 * I found no substantially in-depth coverage in reliable sources about Ms. McGrann herself.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to for finding these book reviews. This gets the topic halfway to meeting WP:NAUTHOR #3, so are there any sources that shows Ms McGrann has "created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment According to this article in Bookseller, Exurbia was also reviewed in the Daily Telegraph on 17/3/2007. --Jahaza (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2 paragraph Guardian review of 360-flip
 * One paragraph review of The Ladies of the House in the Sydney Morning Herald
 * Brief (very odd) article here in Ham&High
 * another book club feature in The Daily Mail.--Jahaza (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. It's stil not apparent to me that a few book reviews justify keeping the article of their author. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems very likely that Exurbia (book) and 360 Flip (book) meet WP:NBOOK. Seems possible that The Ladies of the House (book) does, too. But, despite being reasonably well-reviewed, I don't quite see any significance being attached to them by the reviewers or otherwise. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR: multiple reviews of multiple books. pburka (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep, the book reviews are fine. Perhaps not as big an author as a Steven King, but we have more for sourcing that some "authors" we see at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reviews from A. B. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator here. There's nothing approaching reliable sources which directly details any aspect of her life except for her few writings, which may or may not be notable themselves. Spin contains a single bare mention of her name and profession, the Skidmore class paper clearly does not meet independence, MOJO (radioheadperu.com) is not an RS, Masthead is her bio page at her employer of the time. The rest of the presented sources are reviews. Note: none of the material asserted in her "biography" section is properly cited and could be deleted by any wikipedian as violating BLP. We owe living subjects better coverage than merely a list of writings. BusterD (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per policy though, it's completely fine for the notability of an article about an author to rest entirely on reviews of their work. Meanwhile, some of those reviews, e.g. do include biographical information and could support that section of the article. Jahaza (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think this meets WP:AUTHOR, if not as robustly as some. Otherwise, as an alternative to deletion, if not kept independently, it looks like Exurbia is independently notable and could be its own article and as very much a third choice, it could redirect to Colin Greenwood, where she's mentioned. --Jahaza (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Expanding on my keep reasoning above: WP:AUTHOR says a writer is notable if "The person has created...[a] well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clearly McGrann's work has been the primary subject of independent reviews, and I believe it's apparent that her works or collective body of work are well known, as her books have been reviewed in widely circulated general interest periodicals such as The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald. Additional reviews can also be found in The Daily Telegraph:
 * pburka (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do I understand the keep arguments correctly? We may base notability for a living person entirely on reviews for their work? I assert the collective body of work is neither well-known, nor has the subject produced a single well-known work. There are reviews, I'll concede. But there is not one single presented or found reliable source which directly details the subject of this living person. What shall we say about this subject? A list of works. That's all we may cite. Disagree with me. BusterD (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you look at any of the reviews, because some, like the Oxford Mail one contain a significant amount of material about her background. Jahaza (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, before my first comment on such AfDs, I check sources then perform my own reasonable BEFORE. By my reading, there is nothing in the (tabloid) Oxford Mail review that wouldn't be found on the inside of one of her books' jackets. I disagree with keep asserters' assessment of significant coverage. Most of what I'm seeing, even in reviews, is bare mention of the author. Zero which engages her body of work at all. Routine coverage of individual writings, but nothing which approaches our GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject sufficiently to keep and maintain an article about a living person on Wikipedia. As a subject, she doesn't seem to meet ANYBIO or CREATIVE. I can't presume such sourcing exists. Without such sourcing, this biography as written is an original work and as such, synthesis. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's in line with our notability guidelines. We have lots of articles about people without needing to know biographical minutae. The encyclopedia is improved by the inclusion of articles about athletes, even if we know only about their athletic accomplishments; articles about politicians, even if we know only about their exercise of power; and articles about writers and artists, even if know only about their art. We could give these articles more precise names, I guess (Works of Molly McGrann, Athletic career of Fernanda Ribeiro, Medals of James Brady), but it's simpler to treat them as simple biographies. pburka (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simpler to whom? Certainly not simpler to the subject of a Wikipedia article which poorly or inaccurately represents that person. Certainly not simpler to the administrator who must close such AfDs. This is exactly why BLP policies were created. We must weigh our contributions against a possible harm. I hold that at least one source must be presented or shown to exist which meets the significant coverage direct detailing criteria. We have none. BusterD (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple, as in concise. But if you agree that Works of Molly McGrann is a notable topic, then we're just quibbling over the title at this point. pburka (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not quibbling in any way. You are clearly misreading my assertion. I have stated I do not find ANY discussion of her body of work, just a few disconnected reviews of individual works. I do NOT hold her body of work is notable. I do NOT hold a single work is notable. I find this is a subject which lacks reliable sources sufficient for a BLP ("works of..." would still fall under BLP policy). Based on presented and found sources, this is a minor figure without any direct detailing by RS. It's a clear delete. I can't find any reason to keep, and the arguments presented thus far are unpersuasive (and don't include RS supporting). BusterD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's your position that not even her books are notable? In that case there's no persuading you, but I expect the closing admin will see that your position is contradicted by several SNGs and years of precedent at AfD that authors of two or more notable books are usually notable. pburka (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not quibbling in any way. You are clearly misreading my assertion. I have stated I do not find ANY discussion of her body of work, just a few disconnected reviews of individual works. I do NOT hold her body of work is notable. I do NOT hold a single work is notable. I find this is a subject which lacks reliable sources sufficient for a BLP ("works of..." would still fall under BLP policy). Based on presented and found sources, this is a minor figure without any direct detailing by RS. It's a clear delete. I can't find any reason to keep, and the arguments presented thus far are unpersuasive (and don't include RS supporting). BusterD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's your position that not even her books are notable? In that case there's no persuading you, but I expect the closing admin will see that your position is contradicted by several SNGs and years of precedent at AfD that authors of two or more notable books are usually notable. pburka (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

* Keep (due to edit conflict) - per WP:AUTHOR#3 and her collective body of work, supported by multiple notable books with multiple reviews (I have added three more reviews to the article from ProQuest); in addition, this article is not simply a list of books, and includes biographical and career information; the WP:BASIC guideline recognizes that primary sources can be used to develop articles, and that sources with more than trivial mentions but not substantial depth can still help support notability. However, similar to athletes, actors, and other subjects that we cover for their notable work, secondary coverage of their work, such as reviews, is coverage about them, and the WP:CREATIVE SNG seems clear enough in outlining how notability can be supported based on substantial secondary source recognition of the noteworthy works of an article subject. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)