Talk:Maura Reilly

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 January 2022 by reviewer Nomadicghumakkad (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability concerns[edit]

I do not believe this topic comes close to notability. Being a minor academic is not grounds for Wikipedia notability. Proposal for review. 122.199.26.110 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong

Would you mind verifying that the first link is dead, and the second is a blog written by the subject?

thanks in advance, I am new Nosteponsneke (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Many of the sources are dead links. A number are blogs written by the subject. The thesis link goes nowhere and I could not find any current hosting of the text.

It appears that this article has been primarily created and expanded upon by the subject of the article themselves, using their own blogs, YouTube interviews with >1000 views, and publications as sources.

This reliance on the subject’s own work may raise questions about neutrality and conflicts of interest. Nosteponsneke (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d ask that @Liz and @Diannaa also please review these sources. Outside of the ones mentioned above, even the ones remaining are trivial references. Nosteponsneke (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reilly meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of her books. These reviews are from academic journals, and hence are more than trivial mentions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, the link to the thesis is a coding problem. I have correct that issue and the link now points to her Ph.D. thesis at WorldCat. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe she meets notability. She is not cited by other academics. Google scholar listed a single citation, and that was by a reprint.

Looking at the guidelines there are 4 categories for authors.

1 is that they are widely cited, which she is not.

2 is that of a significant new concept, theory or technique. I can’t see any in the article.

3 is “ created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work”. I don’t think a handful of publications meets this criteria.

4 asks “created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work”. None of Reilly’s publications has this level of review. Nosteponsneke (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article I ask you to refrain removing the notability tag. A disinterested party should examine the discussion. Nosteponsneke (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reilly meets criteria #3, and here is how:

Her book Art Without Balls was reviewed by the following:

Women's Review of books: two page article on the book
Signs (a journal published by the University of Chicago): 4 page article

Her book Women Artists: The Linda Nochlin Reader also has multiple reviews:

New York Times (multiple paragraphs on the book)
Women's Art Journal (2 pages)

This is several reviews on several works from Reilly, which is sufficient for WP:AUTHOR

While I did submit this article to AfC, @Nomadicghumakkad was the one who moved the article into mainspace because they felt it met WP's notability requirements. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

This book is not a well known or significant body of work. Two short reviews does not meet the equipment of “multiple independent periodical reviews”. According to the notability guidelines, the number of sources is not the most relevant factor, it is the importance these books have had in the field.

She has no publications on JSTOR. Most of the sources listed are by Reilly. Most of Therese reviews are hosted on microblogging sites. Nosteponsneke (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how publications like the New York Times, The Brooklyn Rail, Signs (journal), or Women's Review of Books are 'microblogging sites'. Also, her work is reviewed on JSTOR, which is an indication of the significance of her work. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me clear here that I have no WP:COI here, I merely saw the page was about to be deleted as it had not been edited within a six month window of time. I added text and citations that talk about Reilly and submitted the page to AfC. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]