Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soni Wolf

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 delete. Sandstein 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soni Wolf[edit]

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

Biography of a recently deceased activist, whose claims of notability are referenced to blogs, not reliable sources that would get her over WP:GNG. Being a founding member of a group is not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to be referenced to much more than just a couple of WordPress blogs -- but on a Google News search, I can't find any significant coverage about her: besides more obituaries in her local media, all I get otherwise is glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about other things. This is simply not enough to get somebody into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Only two references are in the article, which is not nearly enough for notability. Delete per WP:GNG. You forgot to add the deletion template to the article by the way. 344917661X (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't forget; Wikipedia's going through some weird technical shit today and some parts of the automated Twinkle process are failing to save properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough notability for a biographical article unless better sources are added. I suggest that the editor simply mention Wolf within Dykes on bikes. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm working on adding additional content and sources. Adding Wolf's integral involvement in Supreme Court Freedom of Expression case. Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of new sources and additional information found by Jackiekoerner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Worthy article with potential. Nominator has failed WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has "failed" neither of those things. At its most extreme, ATD can easily be claimed as handing every article that has ever existed at all an automatic exemption from ever being deletable, just because "alternatives" theoretically existed — ATD is about things like "there is a credible reason to believe that this is a valid enough search term to warrant redirection to another related article", not an automatic trump card in every deletion discussion just because you type the letters. And people can only BEFORE in resources that they have access to — if somebody has access to a database I don't, in which a person has more coverage than she does in the databases I do have access to, then that's great but it fails to constitute evidence that I failed to do my due diligence in the first place. Please note what WP:ATTP explicitly says about why BEFORE should not be used as grounds to attack other editors. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat appears to have it right. I am seeing a lot of mentions of ATD at the moment - is it the new attempt at a catch-all for inclusionists? - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No verifiable proof of independent notability. An admirable, no-nonsense person, in my very humble opinion, but Wikipedia is shaped by policy and not sentiment. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.And (+1) to Bearcat's response to CFax.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and an absense of the kind of sources and accomplishments that meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 12 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.