Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva O'Connor

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. ✗plicit 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva O'Connor

[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)

Not notable; self promotion/publicity Twelve73 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:CREATIVE - I quickly added reviews for two more plays, Guardian, Observer, The Irish Times, Irish Independent, NYT, The Irish Times, as well as this 2017 report from The Irish Times with independent content about her and her career. Between these sources and what was already in the article, per WP:CREATIVE, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There is also a recent article in the Irish Times about a new work that is subscription-blocked. Based on available sources about her and her career, this article can continue to be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient evidence of sustained coverage to demonstrate that WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE are met. That being said, the WP:PROMO, WP:NOTREVIEW and WP:NOTMIRROR concerns would ideally be addressed. (Even with recent summarisation, 50% of the article is reprinted mirrors of reviews. (This revision has ~580 words of prose. ~290 of these words are reprints of presumably copyrighted reviews from news sources. Ideally this wouldn't be the case.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that WP:NOTMIRROR or WP:NOTREVIEW applies to brief quotes from reviews, and this article is a little more challenging because the reviews published by secondary sources tend to cover both her work as an actor and as a playwright. That said, these were quick additions, and the article can continue to be developed, including to edit for unsourced WP:PUFFERY. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like almost every article, there is room for improvement. WP:RATER suggests it should be a B, I don't agree due to style, but it's a better article than the current grading. Anyway, notability is established. I see no reason to delete this article now that it has been improved. CT55555 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major improvements to article & sources since nomination. I too disagree with Guliolopez's "Not mirror" & "Not review" comments; quoting from reviews is entirely acceptable. Copyright only starts being a problem if one copies too high a proportion from a single source. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, don't make BLP deletion nominations that assert "self promotion" with no evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of any Self-Promotion, clearly a notable actress.Nassimela (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bulk of content comes from established Wikipedia editors. Nwhyte (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as above. Nominator doesn't seem to have done a proper WP:BEFORE check, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2022 (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.