Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey McGinn


 * 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.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Audrey McGinn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was created as undisclosed paid editing paid for by the California Innocence Project; appropriate disclosure has now been made. It seems to me that notability here is questionable at best. Discounting the connected sources (California Innocence Project etc) and dross such as LinkedIn, there's very little in the way of in-depth coverage. She gets two real hits on GNews. As an academic, she has no citations on Scholar, though several people have thanked her. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I should disclose that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Innocence Project and I am also surprised and disappointed that they would choose to use donated funds to hire a paid editor to write a promotional article about one of their staff attorneys. Most of the refererences are not independent since they are published by the Innocence Project itself, and the attempt to add a LinkedIn profile as a reference is ludicrous. I do not see a single independent, reliable source that devotes significant coverage to this person, as opposed to passing mentions. Unless such sources can be produced, the article should be deleted. For an example of a biography of a notable defense attorney who has spent his entire career trying to exonerate innocent people, please see Tony Serra and its refererences. Disclosure: I worked on that article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Gosh, this is such blatant self-promotion. I respect the Innocence Project as well but there's really no indication that this individual is notable. Most of the sources are self-published, including LinkedIn (oh boy), and the only coverage in reliable sources seems to be in the form of passing mentions. This subject doesn't meet the significant coverage aspect of our notability policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems to be one of several along these lines: Alissa Bjerkhoel, Alex Simpson (attorney), Michael Semanchik, Justin Brooks. Bakazaka (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Their PR team has certainly been busy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Judging from the inappropriately censorious tone of some of the comments ("oh boy," indeed), I think there is a major lack of WP:GF going on here – not to mention Civility. And the assumption that a small nonprofit like CIP that relies mostly on the work of volunteers and interns could actually afford a “PR department,” or even want one, is to say the least bizarre.


 * When I was contacted by the client about this article, I carefully explained to them that any person who would be the subject of a Wikipedia article had to be considered notable to be included in Wikipedia, or I couldn’t work on the project.


 * The information they gave me about McGinn included these facts: 1) she had been directly involved in the exoneration of a number of convicted persons in California; 2) she had worked in Latin America on a special project teaching attorneys and students about the process of legal exoneration and 3) she had worked for a year as Director of the Wrongful Convictions Division (WCD) of the Iowa State Public Defender’s office. The last appointment was particularly important because it did not involve the California Innocence Project. In addition, the appointment of McGinn by the State of Iowa was very highly publicized. The State of Iowa would never have hired her unless she was considered an expert in determining whether forensic evidence of past Iowa convictions was reliable or not. Primarily because of this third fact, I concluded that she was, in fact, notable, and I decided to take on the project.


 * It has been pointed out that there are mostly only passing mentions in the media about McGinn relating to her work for CIP exonerating California prisoners. However, it would be very strange if it were otherwise. The CIP attorneys work in teams, and it’s unusual when one is singled out by the media to be profiled, unless they hold an executive post within CIP. Ironically, I found and included one such profile of McGinn here, but the passage and reference had been deleted by a previous editor.


 * About the high-profile State of Iowa appointment, there was, as I’ve said, very substantial media coverage, but because it was a local not a national story, it was covered by media like The Des Moines Register, not (for example) The Washington Post. This should be taken into account.


 * There is a profile of McGinn here in Spanish, which I didn’t use, about her teaching Chilean attorneys about exoneration in the context of the American and Chilean justice systems. There’s also this story, also in Spanish, about McGinn training Mexican students how to do oral trials. Can these be used even though they’re not in English?


 * The sole reason that I included McGinn’s LinkedIn profile as a reference, a fact that some people seem particularly put out by, was because that profile contains her downloadable resume (and I indicated this clearly in brackets in the reference), which provides information about her career history not otherwise available. If this link is considered unnecessary, it should be deleted and I’m fine with that.
 * Dylanexpert (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For context, this comment was made by the user who was paid to write this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've seen quite a number of passing mentions, nothing WP:SIGCOV at this point in time serves only as a promotional piece. Optionally, i would suggest being moved to AFC but thats late now. So next time article creator should consider submitting paid work through AFC. Lapablo (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - In addition to what's already been said, the usable sources seem like they are mostly for the specific job she was doing in Iowa. She did this for a year, and this job is, presumably, still just as important even without her participation. These sources do not appear to be sufficient to support an article for Wrongful Convictions Division of the Iowa State Public Defender's office. We do not even have Wrongful Convictions Division or Iowa State Public Defender, and barely have one for Attorney General of Iowa. This illustrates the problem with this kind of paid editing: It inflates the apparent significance of some individuals, while undermining the actual significance of the work they do. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.