Ruth Sinnotte – Article restored by deleting admin and speedy request subsequently declined by Mz7. Nothing more to do here. – SoWhy 07:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Incorrectly deleted as WP:A7 by Y (talk·contribs). The page had three references to books covering the subject (two of them not available online afaict so Y most likely had no way to assess them before deletion). This is imho sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. I raised the deletion on Y's talk page on 18 May 2018 but they have not responded despite editing other articles in the mean time, so I'm bringing this here. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed your note. The article was nominated for A7 because it attests to her existence but doesn’t indicate why she is notable important. If there’s a genuine claim of notability that can be added here, I’m happy to undelete it. -- Ynot? 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Y: As pointed out by multiple editors here, notability is not relevant for A7. The bar is explicitly lower and it has clearly been met in this case. If you genuinely believe that articles need to claim notability to avoid A7 speedy deletion, you probably should refrain from handling A7 speedy requests in future. Regards SoWhy 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine. There’s no indication of “importance” per wp:A7, I fixed it above. -- Ynot? 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that three different people found her important enough to write about 100+ years after she died is not an indication of importance for you? Why? Regards SoWhy 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirms her existence, not her significance. Like I said above, I’m happy to undelete it. Hopefully you can add a sentence in there that explains why, out of the multitudes of humans who served in the Civil War, this one is in some way interesting. It’s not in the deleted revisions. Goodbye! -- Ynot? 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're applying too high a bar. WP:CSD only applies to the most obvious cases. If you've gotten to the point of evaluating the quality of sources, you're beyond CSD territory. It only took me a few minutes of searching to find several pages on-line about her (I think this was actually one of the sources cited in the original article). I could certainly see somebody arguing at AfD this this is a first-person account, and thus doesn't contribute to WP:N, but surely it's enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as the given sources demonstrate notability plausibly enough to pass the A7 bar, even though there's nothing in the text of the article to indicate significance. (I'll be arguing for deletion in the afd. Google Books shows me the Hall source and one page of the Holland source, and they're both just as much passing mentions as the Harper one that was linked in the article. But that doesn't make this a good speedy.) —Cryptic 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the article had a number of inline citations to printed books. A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability, so if an article indicates that the subject might be notable then that's enough to avoid A7. That includes articles citing a number of reliable sources, unless they're all clearly unsuitable for establishing notability. Hut 8.5 17:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. That's totally bogus, per User:Hut 8.5, but even more so considering this is somebody who died 120 years ago. The existence of any on-line sources for somebody from that era is a reasonable guess that they're notable. Maybe not enough to get past AfD, but surely enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
