Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Redmond

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. John254 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Redmond[edit]

Appears to be fake, if real not notable no sources Testmasterflex (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No, it's real. Here's a source from the Dublin City Council website: 1 - see page 15, there's even a photo of the Father Mathew sculpture. Even found a photo of her tombstone 2. But is she notable? Doesn't seem like it, alas. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go and immediately claim that the subject in question is not notable - just because an article is weak, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the subject. Mr. Vernon verifies that she is indeed a real person, and that the article covers factual information. Is the statue of Father Matthew, in which is supposed to be her most famous work, particularly notable? By the looks of it, it might be to an extent - though unlikely enough for its own article. If the statue isn't notable enough for its own article, and if the sculptor hasn't really done anything significant otherwise (and both appear to be the case), I recommend deleting this article due to an apparantly general lack of notability of the subject in question. Master&Expert (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if the statue in question IS notable enough for its own article - which I strongly doubt - then this article should be partially merged with it. Notability is not asserted through adequate sources. Master&Expert (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Inadequately sourced by a vanished editor, but there is one good source inside the article "Nora J Ryder’s article in Capuchin Annual (1932)". This recent scholarly book mentions her as one of the "well-known names" who were needed to sign the 1889 A Declaration in Favour of Women's Suffrage, while there seems to be an article on her in the 1889 Irish Monthly[1] unfortunately only snippet view. The story about the drunken model gets some corroboration here. Gbooks searching on her name + sculpture / sculptor / sculptress / dublin get some bits and pieces.John Z (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not establish notability per WP:NOT Testmasterflex (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Irish Monthly article on her is certainly one piece of substantial coverage. The Capuchin Annual article very likely is another; unfortunately we do not have the title. Library research would be essential to improving the article, but that is no reason for deletion. There are other Mary Redmond's out there who make the task more difficult, but this one appears to be the most notable.John Z (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs more sourcing, and given the time period in which the subject did her work, web-based sources might be hard to come by. John Z's research has turned up enough evidence that sources could be found although offline. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep based on sources found by John Z. Edward321 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (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.