Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Maguire (Irish digital artist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:03, 6 January 2020

Michael J. Maguire (Irish digital artist)

[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)

Although he is described as prominent, the text doesn't actually suggest substantial notability, and nothing that would meet WP:NARTIST. The key point, though, is that sources are entirely lacking. Of the 7 currently in the article, four are his own works, one is simply his keynote, and one is an interview with him. That leaves only the EBR. I can't work out how reliable a source this is - it describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, but it accepts essentially unsolicited essays, so I'm not really sure how far it goes to establishing notability. Either way, though, we don't have the multiple sources needed. Hug^syrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hugsyrup probably beat me by a second as I was already in the process of opening this AFD myself. Subject of article isn’t entirely not notable I must say but as per in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources he falls short of WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that the figure in question is notable, though I appreciate that there isn't a huge body of work to draw from in terms of references. The EBR is one of the leading journals in the field of electronic literature, peer-reviewed and published by the OLH. I certainly think it is a valid, scholarly source. I have also added a second journal just now. I appreciate it's not a huge volume of citations, but I think for an artist in such a narrow field to have been discussed in two seperate peer-reviewed academic papers, one of which is almost entirely about their contribution to the field, is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutmianYakta (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:02, 6 January 2020 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,546,196 edits m Signing comment by OutmianYakta - "" ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:03, 6 January 2020 edit undo OutmianYakta (talk \| contribs) 195 edits mNo edit summary Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	*'''Delete''' - {{u\|Hugsyrup}} probably beat me by a second as I was already in the process of opening this AFD myself. Subject of article isn’t entirely not notable I must say but as per in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources he falls short of [[WP:GNG]].[[User:Celestina007\|Celestina007]] ([[User talk:Celestina007\|talk]]) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' - {{u\|Hugsyrup}} probably beat me by a second as I was already in the process of opening this AFD myself. Subject of article isn’t entirely not notable I must say but as per in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources he falls short of [[WP:GNG]].[[User:Celestina007\|Celestina007]] ([[User talk:Celestina007\|talk]]) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

	*'''Keep''' - I certainly think that the figure in question is notable, though I appreciate that there isn't a huge body of work to draw from in terms of references. The EBR is one of the leading journals in the field of electronic literature, peer-reviewed and published by the OLH. I certainly think it is a valid, scholarly source. I have also added a second journal just now. I appreciate it's not a huge volume of citations, but I think for an artist in such a narrow field to have been discussed in two seperate peer-reviewed academic papers, one of which is almost entirely about their contribution to the field, is fair. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OutmianYakta\|OutmianYakta]] ([[User talk:OutmianYakta#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OutmianYakta\|contribs]]) 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		I certainly think that the figure in question is notable, though I appreciate that there isn't a huge body of work to draw from in terms of references. The EBR is one of the leading journals in the field of electronic literature, peer-reviewed and published by the OLH. I certainly think it is a valid, scholarly source. I have also added a second journal just now. I appreciate it's not a huge volume of citations, but I think for an artist in such a narrow field to have been discussed in two seperate peer-reviewed academic papers, one of which is almost entirely about their contribution to the field, is fair. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OutmianYakta\|OutmianYakta]] ([[User talk:OutmianYakta#top\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OutmianYakta\|contribs]]) 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->