Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna McNeil


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 17:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Donna McNeil

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of WP:SIGCOV: depth of coverage is not sufficient and some of the used sources are not independent of the subject; subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. PROD objector described the subject as a creative professional, however the article doesn't claim that she is a creative professional, and I am unable to determine based on reliable coverage that the subject is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by "peers", nor am I able to determine fulfillment of other relevant SNG criteria, based on my WP:BEFORE. —Alalch E. 23:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Subject is a Creative Professional and meets "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." As cited this subject has been director of the Maine Arts Commission and a juror for the National Endowment of the Arts. These positions are extremely significant within the arts field. Lack of knowledge of the arts and/or misogyny is not sufficient reason for disqualification, nor is it reason for harassment.
 * Depth of coverage is significant and sources include several reliable newspapers, as well as two book publications. All sources are independent of the subject excepting staff page for organization of which she is part. Kapyidu (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to emphasize that deletion of articles about women on the basis of finding women's contributions not "significant enough" is a well-documented bias issue on Wikipedia:
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321?journalCode=rccc20
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/?sh=ca6bf864bfe2 Kapyidu (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Publications by the subject of a biography do not count toward establishing notability (by themselves). I'm sorry about the perception of misogyny and harassment. Such an imputation makes me sad, but I am unable to change my course based on it, because I hold myself to the relevant norms of Wikipedia, to my best ability. Even if this discussion does not result in deletion, I hope that you will not hold this nomination against me. Perhaps over time, as you better understand the conventions of inclusion/deletion (which are not very simple), you will see this as a completely neutral and impassioned work on the encyclopedia that is in no way negatively directed toward the individual. Sincerely —Alalch E. 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep or Draftify: I'd like to note this article was 21 minutes old when it was prodded and 54 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. While the article is not fully formed now it seems possible given a few hours or days sufficient RS can be assembled to pass GNG. These three local sources help to directly detail. My BEFORE took me a single mouse click. I'm seeing a number of these local things in a news gsearch. BusterD (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, Women,  and Maine. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the above cited sources when I made the nomination but did not consider them significant coverage. I researched the topic between noticing the article (before PRODDING) and nominating here, which I did after gaining a belief that it is unlikely that the article would very significantly change in the foreseeable future if just "left alone". This process can lead to more unexpected improvements. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftification is a plausible result of this discussion, that I am not opposed to. —Alalch E. 00:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage in the Courier Gazette in Maine. The Penobscot Bay Pilot - she also co-authored books Moser: legacy in wood, and There Has to Be Magic The Art of Evelyn Kok. She is considered an expert in her field and she was the former director of the Maine Arts Commission. I think she passes WP:BASIC at a minimum. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient sourcing exists and can be added. While an hour is within policy, a discussion with the creator might have been more fruitful than deletion nominations. Star   Mississippi  01:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CREATIVE is a shortcut that takes us to "creative professionals" guidance that helps us determine the notability for "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". She was clearly identified as an author at the time of nomination, so I find the nomination logic to be unconvincing. I've added some citations and content and I consider that the article passes WP:BASIC. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concede now that she is a creative professional; the logic is that the creative professional aspect is relatively minor for someone described as an arts advocate and curator, not an author (now she is), who also authored something, but this is not a good argument. However, I mentioned this just as a preface to the consideration of whether The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors which is a bit of flexible criterion (the other three criteria are more rigid and they clearly aren't met). There is no evidence that the person is an important figure etc., that's the actual point. —Alalch E. 02:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and also careful reply and clarification. I am not sure if the WP:AUTHOR criteria is passed, but I didn't bother assessing it there, when WP:BASIC seems clearly met. So that's my main point. CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per details above. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2022 (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.