Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Maguire (Irish digital artist)


 * 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. Tone 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael J. Maguire (Irish digital artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although he is described as prominent, the text doesn't actually suggest substantial notability, and nothing that would meet WP:NARTIST. The key point, though, is that sources are entirely lacking. Of the 7 currently in the article, four are his own works, one is simply his keynote, and one is an interview with him. That leaves only the EBR. I can't work out how reliable a source this is - it describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, but it accepts essentially unsolicited essays, so I'm not really sure how far it goes to establishing notability. Either way, though, we don't have the multiple sources needed. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete -  probably beat me by a second as I was already in the process of opening this AFD myself. Subject of article isn’t entirely not notable I must say but as per in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources he falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think that the figure in question is notable, though I appreciate that there isn't a huge body of work to draw from in terms of references. The EBR is one of the leading journals in the field of electronic literature, peer-reviewed and published by the OLH. I certainly think it is a valid, scholarly source. I have also added a second journal just now. I appreciate it's not a huge volume of citations, but I think for an artist in such a narrow field to have been discussed in two seperate peer-reviewed academic papers, one of which is almost entirely about their contribution to the field, is fair. OutmianYakta (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * if you notice in my comment above you’d see that although I !voted a delete I mentioned that the subject is not entirely non notable but does not fulfill WP:GNG. If you see any criterion amongst the criteria for inclusion that the subject qualifies under please draw my attention to it and perhaps I’d change my !vote to a Keep. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment  - I have removed the unattributed opinions, uncited editorial and general "puffery" from the article. (The terms like "prominent", "highly regarded" or "prestigious" being particularly concerning when unattributed and unqualified. And not in the sources.) I have tagged some of the remaining text as failing verification with the linked sources. (The claims like "first work of electronic literature created in Ireland" being unsupported and unexplained. And not in the sources.) I have gone looking for other sources to see if anything establishes notability - and largely come up short. (The likes of this bio webpage or this blog being about the only things that I could find. And these are not contributory really.) I will hold off with my own !vote recommendation for now. As the author seems to be actively working on the article still. But, as with and  I'm leaning towards "delete" right now. As the sources (to establish notability) don't seem to be there. The sources (to support the text) are barely there. And the sources (to attribute the opinions/subjectivity) are not there at all... Guliolopez (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update. I have left the fence. And updated my AfD contribution from a "comment" to a "delete" recommendation. That no additional sources have come to light in the meantime (confirming notability under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO) means I have not shifted from a quasi-neutral stance to a "keep". Rather, that a previous and seemingly related AfD has come to light in the meantime has, instead, shifted mine to a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Electronic Book Review (EBR) has been around for a long time, and is a peer-reviewed journal. It is a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment #2 - It also seems that this article was deleted once before but had a slightly different name Articles for deletion/Michael Maguire (digital artist) unless I am mistaken about this. Netherzone (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I saw a few instances of being mentioned in good publications. But I did not see any in-depth coverage beyond the limited amount that is in the article. Four of the eight article sources are by the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST. Spleodrach (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - After a comprehensive search, I could not find enough on this artist to substantiate notability as per our guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2020 (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.