This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Acknowledging the validity of the original concerns, there have been a number of editors involved in this page since 2021, and the user/subject has not touched the article in over a year. Is this tag truly necessary now? the artchivist (talk)22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other editors may have contributed doesn't change the fact that that article had a clear COI, including adding purchase links for her own books. Adding those links clearly shows a COI and a violation of Neutrality and Advertising, blatantly.
Moreover, the article clearly doesn't meet Notability guidelines. The most substantive sources are the subject's personal website, and the other notable sources merely include a sentence of two in passing. I'm proposing this article for deletion. Andrew6111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI has been addressed. There are no purchase links in the list of publications. Subject of article is a recipient of the Order of Ontario, a significant award, and her archives are in Library and Archives Canada, a national archival repository. I would dispute any effort to delete this article. the artchivist (talk)21:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's obviously fabulous, so no concerns about notability. I did, on first reading, find copyvios, close paraphrasing, non-neutral tone, and claims that were not backed up by the sources, so am assuming those claims were original research. I've cleaned that up for now. Netherzone (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "obviously fabulous" is not official Wikipedia policy for notability, nor are receiving the Order of Ontario or having archives in Library and Archives Canada. Let's remember GNG — "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Her coverage in the sources are 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. Not independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
Once you purge these unacceptable sources, you're left with about 10 paragraphs reviewing her books across a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings. The entire "Career" and "Honours" sections rely on the unacceptable sources, as well as half of the "Writing" section. The parts that do survive the trim are either insignificant, such as "her interviews with war artists have been called critical", or redundant, as "She also has authored many books on the history of Canadian art".
Need I remind you that lack of notability for a Wikipedia page does not mean that she has led an uninspired life. I have never interacted with the subject, and I am not doing this out of spite. I encourage you to maintain the same sense of objectivity and neutrality.
Lastly, you said that the COI has been addressed, but it has not. The article was obviously created for self-promotional reasons, by the subject. That is a conflict of interest. The thrust of the article remains — a self-laudatory, poorly sourced stub of a non-notable subject. Andrew6111 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, @Andrew6111, "obviously fabulous" was obviously not quoting WP policy or guidelines! Seriously, tho, IMHO she meets WP:NACADEMIC. You are correct that there is an undeniable COI (to which I agree that it was incorrect for the subject to engage in). Please note that you always have the options to list the article at WP:COIN for community input, or alternatively start an WP:AFD if you feel strongly the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Personally I don't think that it would be a productive use of editor time, but there is nothing stopping you from making a nomination for community consensus. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Netherzone, I do appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject and am glad you find her obviously fabulous, but where issues arise is when you used that as justification for her notability!
Two issues remain:
1. I don't believe she was primarily an academic. Her contributions are as an archivist.
2. Even if you do believe she was an academic, nearly all the sources are invalid and unacceptable, clearly a remnant of the original COI when Murray wrote this about herself. I will remove all text based on invalid sources no matter what, even if the article's notability stands. Andrew6111 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed deletion.
There is very little coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources and any mentions of the subject by secondary sources are in passing and contain little in-depth information. Additionally, most of the secondary sources found in the article do not meet our standards of neutrality.
The bulk of the information in this article is not verifiable and what's left is not notable. Before even considering the obvious COI, the article should be deleted. Gbaby99 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article can't be PROD'ed twice, and in the case of a BLPPROD, the article must be fully unsourced which this is not. Additionally PROD's are suggested uncontroversial deletions; this article would not apply.
@Andrew6111, I've reverted your sweeping changes because they were not an improvement. It's really better to consider making smaller changes which are each justified in the edit summary or discussed here. FYI, primary sources can be used to verify biographic material, however they do not contribute to notability. There is no reason to remove primary sources. Please do not remove book reviews because they contribute to notability per WP:NAUTHOR; nor remove awards/honors because it's perfectly fine for these to be sourced to the award itself and these do indeed contribute to notability. Netherzone (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
