Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Murphy

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. Or at worst no consensus, but all opinions after SarahSV's "keep" opinion have followed her arguments. Sandstein 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Murphy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a writer and journalist whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. None of the footnotes here count for anything toward establishing a person as notable: #1 is her own publication's self-published content about itself, which is not support for notability as it's not independent of her; #2 is a piece of her own writing about herself, which is not support for notability as it's not independent of her; #3 is a podcast, #4 is her own publication again; #5 is a mere meeting agenda, not content about her; #6 is an inherently unreliable source which never belongs anywhere near the references section of any Wikipedia article; #7 and #8 are both glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about her; and #9 is the schedule page of her podcast on the website of a radio station that broadcasts it as a program, which again flunks the "independent of her" test. As always, a person does not get over a Wikipedia inclusion test on what the article says -- she gets over a Wikipedia inclusion test on how well the article references what it says to reliable source coverage about her in media that gets her over WP:GNG, but exactly zero of the references here are contributing anything toward getting her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Also, a note, Not all of the citations when searching her name are actually about her, many are about other people who share the same name, so the number of articles when searching google news does not reflect her relevance specifically. On top of that, she isn't even first in the google news result, only in a normal google search which is just her blog.ShimonChai (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do see sources like the CBC get her brief opinions on a topic but since these are primary sources and I'm not seeing secondary reliable sources about her that deletion is right for now. Rab V (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete active journalist, but fails WP:JOURNALIST because there is just not enough written in WP:RS about her rather than by her.
Delete per WP:JOURNALIST Neutral given SV's evidence below.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to mention that we have had and continue to have considerable conflicts with EvergreenFir and Rab V (among others who haven't appeared here [yet]) regarding what counts as notable, as NPOV, as a reliable source, as a correct reading of a reliable source, and so on, in the context of transgender-related Wikipedia articles or sections thereof, such as Feminist views on transgender topics, Radical feminism, Transphobia, and most recently Trans woman. This is clearly due to different ideological positions we hold, which probably influence our respective judgments to a higher or lesser degree. Without claiming bad faith: I've grown highly doubtful regarding their ability to remain sufficiently objective on such topics. (I invite everyone to apply the same type of scrutiny to me.) As Meghan Murphy is one of the more prominent figures in the feminist critique of the contemporary transgender movement (up to the point of appearing before the Canadian Senate to testify against Bill C-16), I worry that their decision here may be particularly prone to bias. I myself (as the editor who created the article) am so far undecided on whether this article is Wikipedia-worthy, even after SlimVirgin's dilligent edits, mainly because I'm fairly uninformed on the standard of quality that's normally expected for such articles. However I do think it would be a shame to delete it, as Feminist Current is currently one of the most important outlets about contemporary radical feminism, in terms of content quality, ties with figureheads of the movement, and popularity. It's also referenced in some of the transgender-related articles I've mentioned earlier. Taylan (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely qualified to make a !vote and state why you think a subject for an article is wikipedia worthy. For me, the main qualifications for an article is that it satisfy the core content policies and that it not fall afoul of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE). The most common qualifier is the guideline, WP:N, which can be summarized by WP:42. So to make a good !vote, just state whether or not you think those policies and guidelines are met. For a better !vote, if you intend to !vote keep, give two or more examples from the references of in-depth coverage of the subject that is independent of the subject. You may be told that those references don't count for some reason, you can then agree or disagree as you like. I'm particularly interested in which references might apply. I think the Greer 2016 piece seems a very good source, are any of the others relatively independent and in depth? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in many AFD votes and my objections here are purely based on notability guidelines. I'd appreciate keeping our comments just about content and not contributors, please see WP:AVOIDYOU. Being a contributor to articles, as Murphy is, doesn't alone let her pass GNG and if I saw more reliable secondary sources discussing her I'd vote the other way. Rab V (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~It's borderline,~~ but she seems to pass WP:GNG. For example, The New York Times quoted her at length in 2014 on whether men can be feminists. [1] They quoted her again when Hugh Hefner died in 2017. [2] The Globe and Mail quoted her in 2014 as an expert on workplace harassment. [3] In 2015 the sociologist Kaitlynn Mendes quoted her in her book SlutWalk: Feminism, Activism and Media, p. 95. In 2017 The Globe and Mail quoted Murphy at length to top and tail an article on hashtag activism. [4] Al Jazeera interviewed Murphy and Jamia Wilson in 2017 about what makes someone a feminist. [5] In 2018 the Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed her about whether stripping can be an art form. [6] SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Feminist Current can redirect here, and together there are enough sources to make an article feasible. Vexations (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being quoted as an expert in the Globe and Mail and the Greer 2016 profile plus extensive use as a reliable source for quotes seems to me to imply a level of expertise that seems make the subject encyclopedic. CCPOL are ok, I think JOURNIALIST #1 is achieved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not gain notability by being quoted as an "expert" in coverage of other things besides herself — a person gains notability only by being the subject that other people talk about in sources about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my argument was based on WP:N. I agree that her WP:N case is a bit weak, but her suitability does seem strong to me and within the policies and guidelines I noted, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SarahSV's citations. Taylan (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough references, do not merge with FeministCurrent, that is a different discussion. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 15 June 2018 (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.