Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Healy - Art Historian


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Healy - Art Historian

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

Contested PROD. Just does nto rise to the level of notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete. Along with the notability issues, the article text has been reworded only slightly from the text in http://mary-healy.com/index.html and http://mary-healy.com/about.html — close enough to constitute a copyright violation and a plagiarism problem in my view. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability left if one filters out ghits that have to do with this person's namesake. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletestill a graduate student.No significant publications. DGG (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has not reached notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. This PhD scholar has contributed significantly to the field of art history - this page should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment can anyone find verification for the comment on her talk page?  because if that is true, then she is clearly notable. --Buridan (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * it's just a grandiose way of saying she has delivered talks at a few places. Sometimes we call it WP:Wikipuffery. DGG (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * so discovering and promoting several 10's of women artists where there weren't more is puffery? if verifiable, it seems it meets wp:prof no?  as a major contribution.--Buridan (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Healy has uncovered a number of French women Orientalist artists. This is a major project in the academic field of art historical research. And might I add, those “few places” where Healy has presented (if you read the wiki) include the National Gallery of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, the University of Limerick, Durham University, National University of Ireland and the University of Stirling, and she has presented to and been recognised by the Irish Association of Art Historians; all of which are highly respected academic institutions/associations – which means her work is notable and meets wp:prof. To verify these dates – follow the links at endnote 6. This is a major contribution! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)  — Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The unsigned above has edits only on this article and has attempted to remove the AfD template. There may be a PoV. In order to pass notability test there must be recognition by authoritative secondary sources. There are too few here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep. Please see references 6-12 on mary healy - art historian for additional secondary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)  — Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please do not vote twice on a single AfD. I have struck out this "keep" comment because you already placed a "keep" comment earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With reference to the above observations made by Katiearthistory, the fact remains that the subject is simply a graduate student doing the standard work by which grad students earn their degrees (no disparagement intended). There are surely tens if not hundreds of thousands of others, none of whom are notable by the mere fact of doing such work. When the WP:Wikipuffery noted by DGG is discounted, there is little of true significance left, which is entirely expected at this stage of one's career. I will point out, however, that there are similar puff-articles (early career women, not-as-yet-notable), which have nevertheless survived well-reasoned arguments for deletion, e.g. Pardis Sabeti and Christel Miller. Will this be another one? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep. Repeating the words of Buridan, discovering and promoting several 10's of women artists where there weren't more is now considered ‘standard work’??? I disagree. This is a contribution which will change the discourse of 19th-century Orientalist painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  — 86.40.242.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. In the sense that one does not get a doctorate without some acceptable generation of new knowledge, yes, I'm afraid it is "standard work". Most doctoral advisors have a good sense of guiding students to topics and problems that are sufficient to satisfy the degree requirements, but not so difficult as to be unsurmountable – this is the practicum where you learn to do research and the overwhelming majority of doctoral projects make only an incremental advance rather than a groundbreaking discovery. I'm afraid these are mostly not notable according to WP standards. Your last statement is naked speculation and I will kindly remind you of CRYSTAL. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. The last comment is spot on in its assessment of PhD work in general. If the work of the LP is as significant as claimed by its proponents then in the course of time it will be recognised by many reliable citations. That time may arrive but is not here yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Comment Yes Agricola44 made a good assessment of PhD work in general – but this PhD candidate’s work is not just incremental advancement. French orientalist painting is a widely researched academic subject; why have such a large amount of women artists, who actively contributed to the movement, not been discovered until now? A major contribution – even if she is a PhD candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apologies for belaboring the issue, but I think you're missing the point entirely. You can pick practically any area and say "X is a widely researched academic subject", then claim that your contribution "will change the discourse of X" and, oh my goodness, isn't that notable! It's certainly true that any student submitting a dissertation documenting discovery of an unknown Shakespeare play, demonstrating practical fusion, curing cancer, and the like, would realize instant WP notability (along with accolades much more important than this:). However, the reality is that most PhD topics are very narrow, having limited interest and importance outside a focused (i.e. small) academic sector. I doubt there would be any argument that "French women Orientalist painters" falls into this category. What this observation means at the practical level is that laypersons outside the field are not really in any position to judge immediate significance, as we would be with curing cancer, etc. As Xxanthippe points out, notability in such situations can only be discerned post hoc by specialists that will frequently cite such work as their field of study moves forward. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment. ‘…having limited interest and importance outside a focused (i.e. small) academic sector. I doubt there would be any argument that "French women Orientalist painters" falls into this category.’??? With all due respect, might I remind you that this is a dictionary whose purpose is to cover subjects of interest to many. You may find that the discovery of numerous women artist where there were none before as trivial, however academics and persons with interest in the field of art history clearly find Healy’s work worthy of note. Look at the locations of Healy’s presentations – how could she present in such noted institutions if her work was not notable. Wikipedia needs sources...there they are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I commend your passion and have no intention of insult or disparagement. However, I'm afraid you're confused on a number of points. (1) WP is not a dictionary (implying it would be all-inclusive). The criterion for inclusion here is that the subject must merit its own article based on notability, as codified in this case by WP:PEOPLE. Many subjects will fall short. (2) I'm afraid "French women Orientalist painters" is precisely a narrow academic topic. I doubt that many academics even within the allied art and history disciplines could name even a few French women Orientalist painters. This topic is undeniably in the realm of the specialist. (3) You assert that presenting some institutional talks constitutes notability, but I'm afraid this again falls into the classification of "standard work" for academics. It is not at all unusual for grad students to give such talks about their research results (many are actually arranged by one's advisor) at top universities, museums, government institutes, etc. in order to get some reasonable exposure as they embark on their academic careers. Most such institutions actually have regular speaker series for such talks. In summary, this person seems to be almost the complete archetype of a grad student finishing up an acceptable piece of doctoral research. All the argumentative points given above do not make her into something more. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

First and foremost I must say I’ve really enjoyed debating with you – thank you for your participation. Secondly, my apologies to wikipedia I should have said ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘dictionary’ in my previous comment – my ‘passion’ seem to have taken the run of me! Thirdly, regarding souring and referencing (although I think we are going around in circles), I believe that proposing to and being accepted by noted institutions in the fields of art and history, which are peer reviewed, merits notability. Finally, and most importantly, you stated in your last comment ‘I doubt that many academics even within the allied art and history disciplines could name even a few French women Orientalist painters.’ You are absolutely right. But, why do you suppose this is? Women artists who contributed hugely to the orientalist art historic movement have been neglected by art historical teachings and writings and as consequence they’ve been written out of art history. This is why many specialists in the field are unable to name even a few French women Orientalist artists. Healy has proven they existed – and not just a few but closer to 100 (proven through primary documentation). She has proven they were actively productive artists AND she has proven they were recognised by artistic hierarchy, such as the Salons de Paris, during their day. (Ref. Mary Healy, National Gallery of Ireland, 6 March 2008). Do you honestly believe that the entire discourse of French orientalist painting is constructed of masculine contribution? Healy has created a database of women orientalist artists and their works and by doing so has positively proven their existence and their contributions to the movement. This is why this is a major contribution to art history and the entry should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment.


 * Comment. Thank you and likewise. Your paragraph above describes a very typical PhD project: discover/uncover enough new information in a specialist area to qualify, write/submit dissertation, then publish in a specialist journal. (Evidently the last step has yet to occur.) Indeed, your post reads very much like I would imagine the abstract of her dissertation to be written. The only salient point in this whole matter is whether this project makes the subject herself notable at this point in time, and in my opinion the answer is unquestionably no. Of course, the closing moderator will make the final call. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. The subject claims to be a PhD Research Scholar at the Department of History, University of Limerick, Ireland. However I cannot find her here http://www.humanities.ul.ie/ . Perhaps I looked in the wrong place. Clarification would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Arbitrary Section break 1

 * Comment. http://www.history.ul.ie/content/view/16/30/ - department of history, UL, site

On my observations, the departments PhD candidates are not listed on the website for the department of history, UL, - only post-doctorate research fellows (good observation Xxanthippe). Endnotes 6-12 verify that she is in fact with the department of history UL. I doubt that the National Gallery of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, National University of Ireland…etc. (being such prestigious institutions) would publicly print that she was a PhD candidate with the Department of History, UL, if she were not. A telephone call could easily verify?? Also, following endnote one, look at Healy’s contact details email: HerName@ul.ie (I can't add her email address to this discussion please follow link to verify for yourself)- I think it’s safe to say that she is a PhD candidate with the department of History UL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. In reference to the above, both Healy and her research are listed on the Department of History, UL, website. http://www.history.ul.ie/content/view/14/28/ (resources), click into postgraduate handbook – Healy is listed on p.7 herein. http://www.history.ul.ie/images/stories/student/mabooklet08-9.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability per nom, DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Rd232 talk 00:30, 29 May 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.