Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigid Maher

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. JForget 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brigid Maher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

autobio puff/vanity article, only references are to IMDB, or to the subjects own websites WuhWuzDat 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiography, and as such not impartial or reliable; there appears to be a significant amount of exaggeration going on here - it talks the subject being given an award, but it appears this was actually a scholarship; it talks about the films being award-winning but there is no evidence of this. Indeed, there is no evidence of any notability at all. I42 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobio spam... No sign of meeting the notability requirements for academics. I know they're not as fussy in fine arts, but it's puffery to call yourself a "nationally rising professor" when you don't even have a doctorate. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another assistant professor whose entry was created too early. Talking points, such as "nationally rising professor", are double-speak for "not notable". I think eventually WP must develop some formalized process for dealing with the raft of assistant prof pages that are created, most of whose subjects are not yet notable. Given the visibility of WP, there is now strong pressure at the asst level to have such pages because their existence reflects favorably on the candidate at the tenure/promotion milestone. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as can find no evidence that subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST from Google News, Books & Scholar. Of her more main works, I could only find a single review of her one feature film Adrift in the Heartland (and I'm not sure how reliable that source is), and no reviews of her longer documentaries Veiled Voices or The King, the Lawyer and the Cheese. --Qwfp (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as copyvio~~: On the article's talk page I noted that the lede para is almost an exact copy of the official profile on the AU web site. The balance of the article looks like it was copied and pasted from another source. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral MichaelQSchmidt's edits have removed my concern over the article being a copy from the AU profile. Well done! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Srong Keep~~ as any issues with the article's format or content can be dealt with through normal editing. It would seem that the subject, even though seen as failing WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST, could pass the General Notability Guidelines [1]. If enough independent reliable secondary sources discuss a topic in enough depth to put together a decent article, we'd better have a good reason to not have an article on that topic. In other words, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:BIO explicitly includes and defers to the WP:GNG. In my opinion, the subject has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so that the article should be kept... cleaned up certainly... but kept. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming up a lot lately: the standards for academics are really slipping. The established criteria are fine, but to me it seems like far too many people are slipping under the wire. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I am ignoring the secondary inclusion criteria of ACADEMIC and ARTIST and am curently involved in cleaning up and sourcing the article to meet the governing criteria of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article will be much slimmer when I am finished. There is much to do all by myself. Please revisit it in a few hours. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not maligning your arguments, I just see a lot of clearly non-notable academics slipping under the wire lately. There are more and more entries for assistant profs at low-presitige schools. Hairhorn (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I look at it this way... no matter the BLP, it either passes WP:GNG or it passes the sub-criteria or it passes both. Failing one does not mean automatic fail of the other. And now I am back to it, as there is a lot of fluff in it that needs trimming.... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice (struck the "keep" up above) and perhaps userfy the new version to the original author (with our thanks and a caution about COI). I went through the article, cleaned it up, improved the format and style, addressed the hyperbole and fluff, and found some sources... but yes... I can admit defeat. The article is much prettier... and perhaps in the future this individual will receive more coverage... but she does not quite meet WP:GNG, does not (yet) meet WP:BIO... fails WP:ACADEMIC and barely tickles WP:ARTIST. Thanks all for your patience, but this time I was Don Quixote. It was good practice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.