Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Presley


 * 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. I expect given the vehemence of some of the arguments here that this will be controversial. However, the majority of the delete opinions seem to be variants of "it's just not notable", despite substantial secondary sources provided by User:Binksternet. Given the weakness of the deletion arguments, there is no option but to keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sharon Presley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nomination Statement
Presented as both a scholar and an author, but fails to meet any of the criteria for notability at WP:Writer or WP:Academic. She is largely sourced by connected, ideological sources. Per WP:GNG, this does not cut it; we need lots of substantive mentions in independent RS indicating that she has influenced mainstream discourse in her fields (psychology and political theory). Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note the article appears to have been created by Ms. Presley herself (1), further undermining the idea that it arose organically, as a consequence of her academic or theoretical notability. Steeletrap (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Keep - She hasn't edited it since 2007 when evidently she was clued in about not editing it herself and other polices, per the archives. Lots of other editors have worked on it since. I'll add some newer refs: [ here ]. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 05:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Binksternet added some of the refs I had listed elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's relevant is not Ms. Presley's motives, but the fact that her entry is an autobiography. Steeletrap (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue as to COI is long dead. We ping such editors when we see COI. And the last edit she made actually downplayed her importance. She was templated as a connected contributor long ago and, as CMDC says, numerous subsequent edits have occurred. So, even with this old COI, a fundamental principal for us is to AGF and not present it/old COI as a basis for AfD. – S. Rich (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the creation of the article was caused by the COI, the COI is not dead so long as the article lives. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors are permitted to write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as guidelines are followed. If their edits are improper, then changes can be made editorially. The mere existence of COI does not serve to support AfD. Notability by itself is the standard. (For more, read WP:COS.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourced to pretty good publishers including absolutely RS - University of California Press, etc.  mentioned as notable in a OUP book by Jennifer Burns. Sharon Presley, one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement, remembered Atlas Shrugged as a revelation: “It wasn’t until Rand that I had some kind of explicitly articulated theory or set of principles that made sense to me… so that was a major, major influence on my life.”27    She have cited by others, multiple RS sources, etc. And I scarcely regard OUP as being an "incestuous and minor" publisher.  Collect (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (note  removed the  "delete" vote I  quote from) Collect (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in a single RS does not come remotely close to establishing notability under the relevant criteria. You have to show that she is a major influence in her field (this seems unlikely given that almost no one has heard of her). Your argument is a total non-sequittur. Steeletrap (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- perhaps you need to read WP:AGF.  In my opinion as an editor with well over thirty thousand edits and reasonable experience in AfD discussions, the person is sufficiently notable.  Attacking folks who disagree with you is not going to change consensus.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article is an autobiography by an individual who is not notable and there is no evidence that she is even known except to her fellow travelers. Almost all the current content of the article should be deleted as unsourced by RS citations. Just to pound it in one more time, Srich: nobody said "COI" so your straw man denial is disruptive.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. An important libertarian feminist writer and co-founder of the Alliance of Libertarian Activists and Laissez Faire Books, Presley meets WP:GNG through coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinel and in A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s. News archives and book searches also bring up numerous mentions of her and inclusions of her writings. Gobōnobō  + c 18:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 21.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article would never have existed but for its subject creating it. She wasn't notable when she broke the rules to create it. She's not notable now. This is our chance to correct her error. MilesMoney (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The BLP was created in 2006 when the "rules" did not so stipulate, The subject has not edited the BLP in over six years, and there have been a great many edits since her last edit.  Cheers - whoever closes this should apply the proper weight to such an argument.   Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The rules such as they are, still do not "forbid" autobios. Creating an autobio is "strongly discouraged", that's all. If somebody can create a well-sourced NPOV article about him- or herself showing clear notability through RS, there's nothing wrong with that. Even if an article is full of POV and an autobio/COI, that is absolutely irrelevant to any deletion discussion. POV/puffery is a reason for cleanup, NOT AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS citations are feeble in a highly cited area. COI is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete - I don't see anything here that would meet WP:GNG. If all we can write about her is that she went to college, worked as an adjunct professor, helped open a bookstore and was a member of an organization... well, yeah, that's not the stuff of an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The Klatch book already used as a reference discusses the life choices, experiences and views of Presley quite a bit, offering them as examples on pages 51–52, 69–70, 82, 84, 93, 118, 150, 152, 162, 269, 273, 286, 296 and 307. A book which is not yet used as a reference is Rita Mae Kelly's Gender and Socialization to Power and Politics. Kelly talks about Presley in the book's introduction, devoting two paragraphs to a study by Presley and her co-authors about Mormon feminism. Reason magazine interviewed her and put the video on their website as "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism". AOL and Huffington Post also hosted this same video. Joan Kennedy Taylor says that Presley was very influential to Taylor's career, through her role in the Association of Libertarian Feminists (Reclaiming the Mainstream, page 7, ISBN 0879757175 ). Taylor also cites Presley's works "Government is Women's Enemy" and "Suzanne LaFollette". Author John F. Welsh writes about Presley's introduction to The Anarchists, spending a paragraph of his book After Multiculturalism on her ideas. Professor Jennifer Burns discusses Presley in Goddess of the Market, saying she was "one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement" and thus was a standout example. These sources show that Presley has influence, has been cited, has had her ideas analyzed and quoted. User:Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect and Binksternet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Also looks like she's an influence in feminist libertarian circles (more than just a member of an organization). While WP:OBSCURE, notability is sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment for what it's worth, there's a quite extensive discussion of Presley in Ulrike Heider's book Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (OP) There is no evidence that she has made a significant impact on academic psychology or on political reflection, outside of a fringe group of fellow travelers. (virtually no one in the mainstream appears to have even heard of her, much less been influenced by her work.) The arguments above fundamentally misunderstand what academia is; academic notability isn't established by mention in a few RS (if it were, everyone with a master's degree would be notable). The interview in Reason is an absolute red herring insofar as academic credibility is concerned. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The strong presence of Presley in the Klatch and the Heider books gets us into field position for WP:GNG. Presley being cited by Kelly, Taylor, Welsh and others puts the ball into the end zone. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bink, you need to balance your love of the chase with understanding of policy. You just don't get what notability is about; these cursory citations aren't close to being sufficient to demonstrate that she is influential in academic as a psychologist or political theorist. Steeletrap (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that GNG has a lower bar. I'm aiming to satisfy GNG here, so you might want to read it and see what it's about. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep while I am certainly sympathetic to the view that her academic actions are not notable, she does seem to satisfy WP:GNG as Binksternet has pointed out. She may not be particularly notable for being an academic, but as an individual she meets the standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Tony. How does she meet GNG? She was interviewed by a newspaper in Milwaukee 33 years ago. She was mentioned in a single book which was published by a university where Presley was a lecturer. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of people with similar qualifications, but are they notable?  SPECIFICO  talk  19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's original comment bring multiple sources that mention her as an influence on notable people, or being worthy of coverage in some other aspect. I feel that the sources provided by Binksternet meet the threshold for GNG.  I don't think she is one of the most important people on the planet, but she meets our basic requirements for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone say that she had any influence, any lasting following, that her words or actions were significant. History has a long cast of characters but this one seems not to have had a speaking role.  Like an extra in Gone With the Wind.  I wish somebody could find an independent RS that tells of some significant action or idea of hers.  The fact that she read Ayn Rand and really really liked it is an experience she shares with millions.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Marc Jason Gilbert, a PhD in Strategic Studies (war and politics), cites Presley in his book The Vietnam War on Campus: Other Voices, More Distant Drums, page 50. He cites the 1971 Presley work "Individualist Libertarians: A Psychological Study". Gilbert says: "Presley, a libertarian herself, found that libertarians were not only smarter than conservatives, but were also less religious, a fact she equated with freethinking and independent, heterogeneous attitudes. Legal scholar Gary Chartier cites Presley's "Government is Women's Enemy" in his 2012 book published by Cambridge: Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society. Wendy McElroy says in the introduction to her book Liberty for Women: freedom and feminism in the twenty-first century, that Presley was a notable pioneer in the topic of freedom for women (page xiii). McElroy also cites Presley's "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense" on page 172. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Presley is cited in five paragraphs and quoted directly in one. The sources include six Presley works. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ronald Hamowy-edited Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, published by SAGE in 2008, has an entry devoted to Sharon Presley, on page 414. It is always a very strong argument for notability on Wikipedia if a major publisher's encyclopedia contains an entry on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. What does the entry say about Dr. Presley? SPECIFICO  talk  17:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you fail to understand that mere citations don't demonstrate notability. Citations have to be substantive and demonstrate that the subject is influental. Also, the last two sources you cite are fringe (anarcho-libertarian) sources. Steeletrap (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * QuestionWait, you are saying that the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is a fringe source? The SEP is the gold standard in philosophical encyclopedias. Multiple citation in it means that she is considered by the top authors in the field to have contributed something worth commenting upon in a resource that is used by the vast majority of undergraduate and graduate philosophy departments in some way. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe sources show she is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Per Xxanthippe. A handful of citations doesn't make someone notable. Please read WP:ACADEMIC carefully before !voting here. If we would treat academic citations the same as coverage in a newspaper, then 2 would suffice for notability. In that case, all of my undergraduate students would be notable, too. I'm going to neutral per my reasoning below in the next section. (Yep, "section", that's how much this AfD got out of hand). --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that Presley does not meet the ACADEMIC notability guideline. You might want to weigh in on whether you think she passes the WP:GNG guideline, as that is the working proposition at this point in the AFD. Make sure to weigh how much detailed coverage there is of Presley in the Milwaukee Journal piece, the Klatch book, and all the other sources citing or quoting Presley. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mister Bink, please see my questionnaire below. Stating that someone 'meets general notability guidelines' is a vague, unhelpful conclusory statement; we need to know what specifically about her work (writings, activsm, etc) leads you to that conclusion. She is only presented as an activist, academic and writer in the article, so it'd have to be one of those. Steeletrap (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've actually read the source material, in the process learning that nobody else appears to have done so. I can share my take on Dr. Presley:  She was one of tens of thousands of young folks who marched, protested, joined up, and were otherwise engaged in the mid-late sixties counterculture.  She was not a leader, she did not write any surviving manifesto or even pamphlet or letter to the editor, she did not meet with the authorities to represent the Movement, she did nothing other than join some organizations, loosely defined.  Appealing a figure as she may be, I can't identify anything notable or even unusual about her.  It would be helpful if editors who favor keeping this article could identify what action of hers makes her notable?  Getting an interview in Milwaukee years later is not notable.  The only reason she appears to have been mentioned in later writings is that, unlike the hippies, yippies, and drippies of the time who vanished into American middle-class life, she was available to reminisce with one reporter for a Milwaukee newspaper and with a writer who was working on a book for Presley's employer. Being the owner's assistant at a two-person bookstore is not notable, even if the store itself may be notable. This is dicey.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your next book, then, is the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism which carries an entry on Presley. If you read that entry you'll understand why other people judge her notable. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. GBooks and GScholar results, together with the sources cited in the article, appear sufficient to satisfy the GNG. The "What is she notable for?" argument is a repeatedly-rejected canard; meeting the GNG is sufficient to establish notability, even if there is no convenient SNG-pigeonhole the subject can be shoved into. It's disruptive to campaign to delete biographies of those whose ideas you reject, and contrary to the project's five pillars; whether the campaign is run from the right (cf the now-indeffed User:IronKnuckle or from the left, as here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is poor and mostly single-sourced as it stands, so I can understand why people might !vote delete based on that. However, as Binksternet has demonstrated, there are more sources out there and at least some of them are indeed independent and providing more than passing mentions etc. She's a minor player but seems to be a notable minor player. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article has no real assertion of notability. As far as I can tell, WorldCat holdings are very small. The source list is problematic too. Many fall far short of WP:RS, for example her CV, various websites, etc. The length of the source list is very misleading because there's lots of repetition. The Milwaukee Journal source seems solid, but I don't think that the list collectively satisfies the bar of having multiple, non-trivial sources. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Can you point to the repetition, 'cause I don't see it. More importantly, what do you think of the biographical entry on Presley in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism? Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 16 sources listed: 5 of them are the Klatch publication and 2 are LFB history, so more than a third are repeats. But the problems are greater, as I said, e.g. several are from her own commercial .net and .com websites, one is just an ISBN number to a book which doesn't even seem to exist, etc. These aren't WP:RS. I'm sorry, but I don't have immediate access to Encyclopedia to which you refer, so I'm afraid I can't readily comment on that. Because there is a very high correlation between notability and significant book holdings and/or citations, the other real red flag here is that her books seem to be held by very few institutions. The gist of the article is that she is notable because of scholarship, but that assertion is not consistent with low holdings and/or citations. Agricola44 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC).
 * What about the SEP citations? While I agree with your general premise about holding being low, generally speaking, I consider people that the SEP takes seriously enough to directly name and quote to be notable.  In combination with having an entry in an encyclopedia published by a major publisher, I consider her to meet WP:GNG.  Those two sources alone seem to meet the bare minimum criteria, and all the others, while they may have issues, are things to be sorted out after notability has been determined by consensus via AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would concede your point if there were a bio about Presley in SEP, but it appears that there are only a few cites and short quotes from her. If we agree that these tertiary cites might carry roughly the weight of a more traditional primary or secondary cite (e.g. from a research article or a book), then I would say that such is very typical for a scholar. In other words, our rough rule of several hundred such citations is the required threshold for notability. Agricola44 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

List of sources

 * Sharon Presley CV
 * Klatch, Rebecca E. A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s, University of California Press, 1999. ISBN 9780520217140.
 * Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, PublicAffairs, 2007, p354, ISBN 1-58648-350-1
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, PublicAffairs, 2007, p354, ISBN 1-58648-350-1
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.
 * "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism", Reason magazine, May 26, 2012.


 * Anyone with access to Google could compile such a list; what we need to do as editors is interpret the meaning of these sources as regards her notability. She is described in the article as a writer and a scholar; do any of these sources indicate that Presley's books, theories, or academic work have been highly influential? Notability is not established by simple mentions in RS. If that were true, everyone (e.g. the survivor of a natural disaster) who has ever been interviewed by a couple newspapers would be notable. All but one of the mainstream sources discussed her in a fleeting manner. The one that went into some detail was published by the University Press of the school she (briefly) lectured at; but that discussion does not establish that she is influential in any respect.. Steeletrap (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What specifically is she notable for?
Most of the "keep" statements have been completely unspecific. To clarify their reasoning, and facilitate a meaningful discourse, I hope those who support keep will answer the following questions.

1) What is she notable for? Please be specific.

If answer to 1) is 'academic work, political theory or writing': Which book/journal article/manifesto makes her notable in this regard, and which RS do you use to support the notability of said book/article/manifesto? Please be specific.

If answer to 1) is activism: What evidence is there that the influence of her activism extended outside of her very small group of fellow travelers? (i.e. influenced the mainstream)) Please be specific. Steeletrap (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Presley is known for her expertise on Ayn Rand, on Voltairine de Cleyre, on Suzanne La Follette, on anarchist feminism, on Mormon feminism, on libertarian feminism, on radical feminism, women and liberty, women and choice, etc. She is known for her organizing efforts as the National Coordinator for the Association of Libertarian Feminists (ALF). She is known for her influence at Laissez-Faire Books, choosing books, discussing books, holding what amounted to a literary salon, and editing the bookstore's own book review periodical, the Laissez Faire Review. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to want to take ownership of your assertions. For example, we know that there is a web page on which somebody or other called her their "national coordinator" -- That's sort of like saying that Mr.Magic Herbal Supplement is known for having the potential to increase sexual potency, results not guaranteed.  You'd need to find an independent secondary discussion of the noteworthiness of Presley's activities in that role.  Everyone knows your lists by now, so unless you can make a policy-based case for the content that they actually would support, your statements irrelevant to the AfD issues.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bink, I just don't see how any of this adds up to notability. MilesMoney (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, gents, I don't think any of my arguments will satisfy you when what you really want is to delete the article. My arguments are for other page watchers to see. I think the encyclopedia builders among us will get the sense that this woman has been said to be important by various authorities and observers, especially with the entry about her in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, her being cited by many authors including Baehr writing for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, her big writeup in the Milwaukee paper, the extensive quoting of her in the Klatch book, and so on. I'm happy knowing that a good number of people here would rather build the encyclopedia than cut down their ideological opponents. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not helping that editors who want the article deleted keep removing material about notability on flimsey excuses, rather than working collaboratively to deal with minor issues, per my long list of problems on the talk page. Those issues will be fixed but I won't edit war to fix them immediately. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Bink: -- Why don't you step up to the plate and improve the article? You've got your sources lined up, so you well prepared to add some good RS content to the article. Then we can have a more concrete discussion of content and notability.  Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy editing topics that are contentious or disputed. I was under the impression that AFDs could be concluded as 'keep' even if the article was not improved, as long as notability was established at the AFD discussion, and article improvement was shown to be possible. If that is not the case then I will expand the article using the references discussed here. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added some content from various sources, but I got to a dead end, because after I added it, the article still didn't show her meeting GNG. Maybe somebody will find some nuggets hidden in your list.  The list by itself cannot support a GNG finding because we don't know what content it will support.    SPECIFICO  talk  16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Question The argument by those in favour of deleting seems to be that she does not meet WP:GNG.  My question is this: can you please explain to us how she does not meet the criteria of GNG?  By my reading of GNG, in combination with the sources provided by Binksternet, she clearly passes the test. There is significant coverage by the definition of GNG.  The SEP alone meets the reliable sources standard, and it seems to me that most if not all of the other sources do as well. There are multiple sources independent of the subject. It seems to me that by GNG, she has the presumption of notability unless it can be shown by those who are advocating deletion that she is not notable, and does not meet the standards for inclusion, especially after such a thorough list of sources has been compiled.  I will be more than happy to change my !vote to delete if this is the case, because I really don't have that strong feelings either way about articles regarding American political ideology.  My main concern is that we do not delete it unduly.  TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: A few more things have been added, including new refs, though the above list has hardly even been plumbed yet for reasons that Binksternet mentions. It would help if people who want article deleted would stop coming up with dubious excuses to delete material that is being added or ref'd, as I have been noting on the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. To me this seems like a case of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  GNG appears to be satisfied.  Place cleanup tags on the article in the areas that are needed to help it become better, and interested editors will develop consensus as to what the best way forward with the article is. If the deletion advocates in this case can correct me, I'm more than happy to change my !vote, but at this point, it looks like she meets the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is she notable for? Does ALF exist, or is it just a nostalgia website she maintains?  Who says she's notable?  Her? She tells some stuff to an interviewer on a web video.  Is that notable?  She was a clerk at a bookstore 30+ years ago? Notable?  A list of googled mentions doesn't confer notability.  The content properly sourced would indicate notability.  I wish somebody would figure out why she's notable and demonstrate it, citing an independent RS.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources that have been provided, and as I showed, meet GNG, grant to her the presumption of notability for being a notable figure within the libertarian community, even if a small one. You also haven't answered my question.  How do the sources provided NOT meet WP:GNG? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, GNG is not about the source, it is about the content. The sources have to say something that demonstrates notability.  What do these sources say that demonstrates notability?  SPECIFICO  talk  03:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. The mere fact that a major publisher's encyclopedia has a biographical entry on a person goes a long way toward satisfying GNG, even if the encyclopedia entry says the person is a fraud. In that case, we would 'keep' the article and work to make its content conform better to the sources. Same with the big writeup in the Milwaukee paper: in a sense it does not matter what it said about Presley; its mere existence shows Presley is noteworthy in Milwaukee, and this adds to notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO is absolutely right. The spouse and children of, for instance, an eminent academic or journalist are likely mentioned in several RS written by the academic or journalist. This does not make them notable. Analysis of the specific content in sources is needed to establish notability. This is why Bink's strategy of Googling without reading is misguided. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Binks, the clip from the newspaper from Milwaukee is not a "big writeup", it's an interview placed by the host of local event attended by Presley. The sponsor of the event was Carroll College, a local Milwaukee school.  The story is in the local news section of the paper and appears next to the tale of a woman who runs a local antiques shop. She buys chairs while her husband prefers stools. What twist of logic would lead you to conclude that Sharon Presley "is" current tense "noteworthy in Milwaukee"?  Bink, do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of similar articles are archived from local newspapers around the world?  Think about your own sphere of knowledge.  How many utterly non-notable stage acts get a sit-down with the local reporter before a local cabaret gig, weekend theater production, or similar event?  Should they all have WP articles?  "Big Writeup??"  -- You don't strike me as one who would be so easily impressed.  If she were notable, there would be dozens of similar clippings.  But there's only one.  One clipping.  Milwaukee.  Sitting there next to grannie's stool.  Think about it.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please call me Bink, Binkster, or Binksternet. I noticed that you chose to attack the big writeup in the Milwaukee paper by belittling its placement and undermining its author. The placement does not affect notability. The author is allowed to be biased. The Milwaukee paper gives a certain amount of leverage here at AFD, being a major US city paper, but as you note it is not multiple papers, and it is not one of the larger US papers such as the Chicago Tribune. Nevertheless, the writeup lends its weight to the total notability of Presley. You cannot cut it down with simple insults and expect to eliminate its influence.
 * I also noticed that you chose not to attack Presley's biography in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, nor her being cited multiple times in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The tactic of picking apart a lesser point when you cannot attack the strong points is not going to sway a careful closing administrator who will be able to assign a very high weight to the encyclopedia presence of Presley. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Bink, Binster, or Binksternet - I think you're goofin' on us now. What are you calling an "attack"? Discussion of the source?  How about "evaluation"?  Thanks.  The placement of an article within a daily newspaper indicates the editors' assessment of its importance and the segment of readership to whom it is noteworthy.  Granny's stools are important, but not noteworthy in the WP sense.  The editors' decision as to where the article appears is one of the things we assess on WP in evaluating sources and the claims attributed to them.  For example, in the weekend living section of your local print paper, you'll find all kinds of informative articles about subjects which nobody will care about 33 years from now.  Anyway, it's not a "big writeup" -- sorry. It's just not. You mustn't assume the conclusion you are trying to prove.  That's fun for one, but it won't stand the test of public scrutiny.  What on earth are you calling an insult?  If you'd be specific, we could get to the bottom of things and figure out whether there's any merit to your views.
 * I don't have any problem with the Stanford reference, so if you want somebody to attack it, you'll have to find somebody else to do your dirty work or "attack" it yourself. I will not attack Stanford, the school, the book, or the movie.  Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we all get by now that the Steeletrap/SPECIFICO/MilesMoney combo do not think this individual is notable. But overwhelming a talk page with your arguments that would seem to drown out other opinions seems a bit questionable, policy wise, doesn't it? Must others be forced into this back and forth? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. If you cannot, I will seek enforcement of Community Sanctions. You may respond to Bink's statement or my reply but you may not denigrate other editors.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed names of editors if that bothers you. Anyway, Guide_to_deletion reads in part: Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Constantly writing: why is she notable, prove it, you are wrong because..., etc. and even creating a section to hammer home the point seems really problematic under that guidance . Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say that the case for non-notability here is even stronger than that of many successful AfD nominations I've instigated or supported. While I will respect the community's decision (which will very probably -- inexplicably -- be "keep'), I expect Presley's proponents to work to improve the article. I expect that another AfD is a possibility (though not from me) if, several months in the future, the best sources you can provide are half-paragraph mentions in esoteric, nostalgic histories of libertarian activism and the one story in the local Milwaukee paper. The Klatch source is a total anomaly; everything else in the article is a cursory mention with no bearing whatsoever on notability. Steeletrap (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And under what account name did you participate in those "many successful AFD nominations"? It certainly wasn't your current account, "Steeletrap". This account has contributed to only 10 other AFDs, only 4 of which closed as "delete". Among those, it nominated 5 other articles for deletion, only 1 of which was deleted. That's a pretty awful track record. So which is it, Steeletrap? Did you just lie in order to influence the outcome of this discussion? Or are you acknowledging use of multiple accounts? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cross your multiple, ridiculous personal attacks or I'll report you. My AfDs on William L. Anderson and Mozart is a Red resulted in the elimination of those WP pages (a "merge" is really a delete-plus; it deletes the WP page in question while preserving some content on another page). You embarass yourself by attempting to evaluate statistics in a vacuum, without looking at the broader context; AfDs usually fail, so 2/5 (40%) is a pretty strong track record. Moreover, neither Miles nor SPECIFICO (my alleged "socks") have (to the best of my memory) ever nominated any article for deletion. I am a bit flattered if you think I'm Mister Sitush, whose AfDs I've also participated in. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, even if I had only had one deletion, the term "many" (as in "successful AfDs) explicitly referred both to ones I've "instigated" and "supported". I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, nor the laughable inferences you draw based on it. I mean really, do I have to teach you that "many" is an indefinite number, and can include 2, 3 etc? Steeletrap (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Report away. I'm sure that claim that "many" means 2 will get the reception it deserves. And, despite your attempts at deceptive insinuation, my comment accurately reported the outcomes for all AFDs in which you participated.And, by the way, as to 40% at deletion being a stroing track record, mine is roughly 85%. "Success" rates at xFD nominations below 50% are not good. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "many" can mean 2, but it referred to half a dozen or so in this context, as "many" referred to both AfDs I instigated and participated in. It is absurd how often I have to explain this to you. Steeletrap (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one of the most ridiculous things (among many) that I have ever heard. And 40% is abysmal. I'm not as good as Hullaballoo, but I get just over 80% myself in over 300 AfDs over the past year (and 73% in >90 articles I took to AfD). I'm withdrawing my "delete" !vote in a minute, as I have no clue any more by now what is hidden in this flood of squabbling. This AfD should best be closed "no consensus" and then re-done in a few months when tempers have calmed down and this thing can be discussed rationally. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 40% is perhaps an abysmal percentage, but it's kinda dubious to draw any inferences from that given that 1) I'm 2 of my last three (0 for 2 as a noob) 2) these pages attract ideological libertarians who are inclined to want to 'keep' the entries of obscure figures they may like 3) It's such a small sample size (5 total AfDs). You can't blame me for being defensive when Hull is making PAs and harassing accusations.
 * Additionally, User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's count is wrong. He did not count my successful AfD for Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, which gives me a 3/4 or 75% success rate since I was a total noob. The term "many" can refer to three (even though it doesn't in this context -- as I included a half dozen or so AfDs I'd participated in.)  HI thus ask HW to cross his erroneous accusations, based as they were on not only a misunderstanding of the definition of terms ("many" and "or") but on a failure of arithmetic. Steeletrap (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note I listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC, because it has past seven days, and as we can see, it has gotten pretty contentious. Just thought it best to let people know. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2013 (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.