Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Gallagher


 * 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. The confirmed fellowships and endowments meet the significant awards and honors criterion of WP:CREATIVE. Because the article received references late in the debate, later comments have been given more weight. Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Gallagher

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Originally prodded (by someone else) with explanation: ''Original research. Statement under References reads, "All information graciously provided through interviews with Ms. Gallagher. All information has been reviewed and updated as of (December 16, 2008). The link below was used to contact Ms. Gallagher and she submitted the information used in this page" Was deprodded by a serial deprodder with claim notable per WP:CREATIVE'' -- I see nothing in WP:CREATIVE that would apply to this person, as she fails every point. No independent reliable sources to establish notability for a full article, and the content of article was clearly generated to promote this person's work (until recently the content included: maryharden@hardencurtis.com. For information regarding performance rights, contact her representative, Mary Harden.  (at end of line quoted above with the original research / text prepared by subject of article). Just looks like a page being used as a resume for someone who doesn't meet our requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the one who prodded this lady. I would suggest deleting the article as Original Research. A note has been placed on the Talk Page of the writer, who has submitted nothing else to WP. This seems to be a blatant case to me. If it is rewritten and resubmitted, then a new decision could be made. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be speedy deleted ASAP for myriad reasons, as noted above. Wikipedia is not for getting business or having your resume circulated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this spamvertising. The absence of reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth that might help establish notability and allow for verification of claims made is usually strong grounds for deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a clearly notable play writer. Easily passes WP:CREATIVE. Article needs to be cleaned-up. Not deleted. Varbas (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This account was blocked as a sock of a banned used, so invalid vote. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This account was determined to be a sockpuppet account while a banned editor (who abused AFD votes by making false claims about notability and using multiple accounts to stuff votes) was being investigated. Not sure why this account remains unblocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Please abide by your Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are still making that false claim even after having been told that nobody ever said you were "not guilty" and they instead at that time ruled that it was quite possible that you were the banned editor but that they didn't have enough info at that time to block you. And of course you know that you are currently still under an open investigation, especially after your recent behavior. Please do not try to deceive people by making highly deceptive statements about what the sockpuppet investigation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * I count four Delete votes (one of those Speedy) to one Keep vote (by a questionable account). Normally that would be a pretty clear consensus already reached. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:N and WP:BIO. Reads like a rèsumè. Orginal research. Advertisement. Edison (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep because the subject is probably in fact notable; the publication record can be shown, and if the plays can be shown to have been produced  where the article claims, she's notable as having written them.  COI as usual makes for a very bad article, but the subject can be notable nonetheless. Have either of the two people saying delete thought to look for sources?  DGG (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "two people saying delete"? Five people have said delete. And this AFD should have been closed long ago as having clear consensus, and it still does. Mere existence of plays doesn't mean that they are notable or that she is ntoable by extension. We need good reliable coverage to demonstrate that, which isn't there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how 5 - 3 is "clear" consensus? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, at the time of the comment the vote was 5-2. However, he noted "long ago" which suggests, when coupled with his response to relisting, that he was referring to the 4-1 prior to relist, a clear consensus when one weighs the fact that one gives reason for speedy deletion and the sole keep has been determined to be a sockpuppet. لenna  vecia  19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5-2 (discounting sockpuppet vote) is a clear consensus. 6-2 now even more so. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. This just needs a cleanup. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - autobiography that fails to establish notability Keep, I found a reliable source for the Guggenheim Fellowship. لenna  vecia  19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and expand. If this is true:  "Guggenheim Fellowship, a Rockefeller Fellowship, the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, the Rosenthal Prize, the Writers Guild Award, and three fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts" then she is a major playwright.  Certainly, she's had shows at major regional theaters....there must be reviews.  I would go so far as to say that all winners of the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize are inherently notable.  Autobiography is tacky, but does not undermine notability - Vartanza (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2009 (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.