Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Rae Sapienza


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Peggy Rae Sapienza

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Questionable notability in spite of long list of references, many of which seem tangential or indirect, and most don't appear to establish notability. Large sections of unsourced text make it problematic to further verify notability. If subject is indeed notable and article kept, this thing needs serious cleanup and better sourcing. Mansheimer (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I am disputing the call for deletion of this article. You have noted that there are plenty of references, you feel that not enough are direct, and too many are tangential: I disagree. I see the Wiki terms of keeping or not keeping an article 'some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." This article interests some people, specifically those who are involved in Science Fiction and Science Fiction Conventions. I don't see the large blocks of unsourced text that you refer to - perhaps there are a few bits here and there, but to characterize them as large blocks is a bit extreme. If you want to mark for clean-up that might be more appropriate, but even then I think that is pushing it a bit. Riverpa (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Peggy Rae was a very important figure in the field of sf fandom, especially in the USA. This particular article has some 20 references to her career in the field, covering all aspects of her life which in itself should qualify her for inclusion. References are only tangential if the reader either disagrees with them or doesn't understand their significance. The article currently only shows one "citation required" flag which indicates a small cleanup rather than a full deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - this needs clean-up and improvements in tone, references, etc. But this nomination is an example of substituting AfD for improvement. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems adequate sourcing already in the article to meet the general notability guideline. Camille Bacon-Smith's work on fandom is considered reliable in the academic community; she interviews Rae in Science Fiction Culture and later refers to her as a "highly expert" con organizer.. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.