Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan O'Hagan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ansh666 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan O'Hagan[edit]

Joan O'Hagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have had a good look at the sources and searched the web and can only find local interest stories about this author. She fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically oppose the deletion of this article, which would be outrageous, callous, mean-spirited, and deeply disrespectful to this author of five books, who finished the last book, which was praised in a literary journal, on her death bed. That she fails WP:NAUTHOR is absurd: those who take the time to read the two cited journalistic articles--"local interest" only in that they were appropriately published in the country of her death--learn that she satisfies both "1." (regarded as an important figure by both a theologian and notable classics professor) and "2." (originated a new concept in her treatment of St. Jerome, seen through a new literary prism). She was not only a writer but also a scholar (with a rare-in-these-times classical background), with her last book having a forward by a Classics professor. Matthew David González 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And I object emphatically to being called callous mean-spirited and disrespectful. Try and calm your self-righteous anger which does not have its place her and read this as well WP:NPA because making accusations about my personal behaviour without proof is a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a place to pay hommage to people but an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is nothing callous mean-spirited or disrespectful in saying that someone is not notable enough to have a page on wikipedia. The problem is that this page has been created by someone who's username is the same as her daughter's and I would imagine that if someone told me after the death of my mother that she is not a notable author I would be upset hence your comment I imagine. But this is one of the reasons why conflict of interest editing is so strongly discouraged. I do not know this woman I have never heard of her and have never read her books but I am a new pages reviewer and I have the thankless task of sifting through articles and trying to analyse their noteworthiness by judging the sources and searching for more. Your arguments for notability do not hold water I'm afraid. The article in the telegraph says at the top "News, local, North shore times" and it is a moving human interest story but it doesn't help to prove she meets the criteria. You have cherry-picked the criteria that say 1: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This requires proof that she is widely cited. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. This requires sources that explain how her book is considered as a significant new concept and not just your personal opinion. Having a forward foreword written by a classics professor is not a proof of notability but proof that a classics professor was willing to write a forward foreword. And I would also like to point out that some of her books (notably the last) are published by an independent publishing company [1] run by none other than her daughter and having as proof reader the famous classics professor of whom you speak so highly. This article looks very much like an attempt at promotion for gain from the subject's close acquaintances. Domdeparis (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: obviously the COI is a real issue, as is the somewhat sparse library holdings...but three of her books appear to have been published by Doubleday, whatever it might be calling itself. Me, I suspect labeling this as COI and trimming it might make better sense than nuking it, for now. Dunno. Anmccaff (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just having had 3 books published by a reputable publishing house is not sufficient to pass WP:NAUTHOR, if the books had been well received then there should be sources out there that proves she meets WP:GNG. I could find none. Domdeparis (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a dog in this fight. I removed the PROD based on THIS ARTICLE, which absolutely counts one towards GNG and makes this the sort of deletion nomination that needs AfD discussion rather than being shunted off to the dark alleyway of PROD to be silently killed... Carrite (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what that means but it sounds very soothing! Enjoy!! Domdeparis (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her book Death and a Madonna seems to have been published by legitimate publishers in Australia (Sun), the UK (Macmillan) and the US (Doubleday) according to this, and there's a review of it in the Canberra Times here. And I only looked for 30 seconds, presumably there's more out there (perhaps not on the internet too).Boneymau (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might wanna pass that page on to any Eric Bogle fans you know, too; look just below the article on the left. On a more serious note, though, Trove has to be watched carefully - not because it's bad, but because it's too damned good. It drags up stuff from surprisingly obscure little papers, and can thus get a multiplier effect with wire service stuff, magnifying notability. That said, I wish there was a decent equivalent here and in Canada, and that the Brit version were free.... Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree about Trove (at least for content before the mid-1950s which is out of copyright), but just for the record the Canberra Times is not an obscure little paper. My vote is more of a Weak keep too.Boneymau (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I didn't meant to imply that; just a general comment on Trove. Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the Canberra Times review. We're known by the company we keep, and she's in there Wambaugh, Gillian Linscott. and Louis L'Amour. Yeah, a local, but that's only mentioned in passing; the reviewer obviously sees them all as of a type in certain ways. It's gonna need a lot of cleanup, obviously. Anmccaff (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi the Canberra times article is a very short review of a book she wrote and not in depth coverage of her as a person. So the source can't be counted towards either her as a person as per GNG and would not meet the criteria as a source for one of her books. For me this does not means she meets the criteria. And again being a published author does not give her an automatic pass on GNG especially just for 3 books (the others are self published). Please do not forget that notability is not inherited so the company that you keep doesn't make you notable. Domdeparis (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the company you keep doesn't make you notable, but the company others keep you in does. The review obviously suggests that, to a contemporaneous Canberran, she was seen as similar to the other authors, with no explanations needed any more than for Wambaugh.
Now I have deep personal disagreement with Wiki's conceit that notability is eternal, but she seems to have been notable then and there. Anmccaff (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She passes WP:AUTHOR if she has created works that have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The Canberra Times review, albeit short, is one. If you look up Google Books, there's mention of her and her works in various sources that sound credible like Cambridge Guide to Cicero (2013) and Twentieth-century Crime and Mystery Writers (1991). These are minor mentions but it adds up. Boneymau (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather Twentieth-century Crime and Mystery Writers is a Macmillan publication (her publisher) and lists over 600 writers. That might not be enough. Domdeparis (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joan_O%27Hagan&oldid=1137951066"