Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jo McGrath

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 soft delete. If someone believes the subject to be notable and is willing to rework the article I will userfy it to them upon request. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo McGrath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible copyvio? Reads like a press release, little indication of independent notability nothing in the way of a solid secondary source establishing it. Created wholesale by User:Chendrix in 2007, who has edited no other articles in any substantial way. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although she fails my tests for lawyers, she may pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE as an author. I found her books at Google Books, and several lengthy quotes in reliable news sources, so she appears to be legit. However, the article is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What an odd comment. Nothing you say justifies your vote, unless being "legit" is a valid keep criterion. If I'm ever the defendant in a jury trial, please remind me not to hire you. If AFD is truly not a vote, I expect the closing admin to read this a "delete." 66.108.176.187 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at most borderline notable, and highly promotional -- almost a G11. An extensive article about someone of at borderline notability is almost also at attempt at promotion, and this seems a good example of that. The sources in Google News Archive are either merely mentioning her as being an attorney in a case, or consist of her own statements. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (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.