Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Murray (art historian)

Joan Murray (art_historian)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joan Murray (art historian)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.

The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).

The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.

It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.

Based on this, I propose deletion of the article. Andrew6111 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Canada, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have to dig a bit, but she seems to be the go-to for Thom Thompson biographies/knowlege. [1], [2], [3]. This is one of her papers [4] and a few book reviews for works she's published [5], [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, has multiple books which have reviews on both Google Scholar and Newspaper.com Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)

Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]