Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherry Wolf (activist)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sherry Wolf (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page about a political activist. Article was PRODded in 2013, objections were raised on talk page on the grounds that she is a well-known activist, but no actual evidence or sources supporting notability were given. Reliable sourcing consists of a single, 3-sentence article in the The Austin Chronicle, here:, it is effectively a caption for a videotape in which she introduces a fellow political activist. Page also has a link to a TV appearance as an activist in a political controversy, here:, she appears ~ 3 minutes in. She has also published 2 books with the small, political press, Haymarket Books, but the books do not seem to have gotten any attention (except in the non-notable partisan journal of which she was an editor. here:). There is a list of articles she has published, but I cannot find evidence of notability independent of her own website, her own publications, and the publications of the very small Socialist faction in which she was (is?) active. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Fails WP:RS. Fails WP:Author   PeterWesco (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gender-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. While some of her views are controversial, Sherry Wolf is clearly notable, meeting criteria WP:BASIC. She has published articles in several leading left/progressive magazines, including the The Advocate (print circulation 175,000, online rank 1051 in US ), The Nation (print circulation 113,000, online rank 2731 in US ), and CounterPunch (online rank 9814 in US ). While these publications may not be famliar to everyone, those online numbers are in the neighborhood of e.g the Christian Science Monitor (1174), Scientific American (1546), the New England Journal of Medicine (4305), and BillOReilly.com (7988). The first book listed has not only been reviewed by the journal where she is an editor, but also for example here, here  here  and here . The book has also attracted several reviews on Amazon and Google Books, and it has been cited multiple times in academic journals . The second listed book is an edited volume where she has contributed a chapter, so that one does not count as much. In addition to her writing, she has had several in-depth interviews about her activism, such as here  here  here  and here . A simple google search on her name or book title will generate many more secondary sources as evidence of her notability, not counting the hits generated by her handbag making namesake (Sherry Wolf (artist)).


 * While notability is a property of the subject and independent of the references provided in the article (WP:ARTN), it should be noted that User:E.M.Gregory, the proposer of this AfD, removed four informative references back in May, that linked to coverage of Ms. Wolf in secondary sources ( compare  and ). Hence, contrary to his/her statement above, he/she had clearly found "evidence of notability independent of her own website", but chose to remove them from the article. Martinogk (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting at the bottom, I went to look at what Martinogk calls "four informative references" deleted from what was, a year ago, an extremely bloated article from which I and others removed a great deal of puffery. The 4  were, in order, a link to an article Wolf wrote for a  webzine called "Gaper's Block", a link to article by Wolf in Socialist Worker, a link to her author's page in The Nation and a link to her book's page at her publisher's website.  Problem, of course, is that these sources are not independent of Wolf; having articles/books published does not confer notability.  Few working journalists are notable, and books confer notability only if the books attract attention in reliable, secondary sources.
 * Back to the top of Martinogk's argument. The fact that Wolf has written articles does not confer notability on Wikipedia. For a journalist to have a page, we need to find articles that are about her, not articles she wrote. (see WP:AUTHOR).
 * Which brings us to Martinogk's evidence of the attention garnered by her book, Sexuality and Socialism. Here we can hope find something pertinent. The question, of course, is are these sources independent of Wolf and are they significant publications.  Link #9 is to an article by Wolf about her own book. Interestingly, "The Platypus Affiliated Society" (link #7) is the subject of a stale sandbox draft ; it seems to be part of the circle of small, Socialist organizations centered in Chicago of which Wolf is part. So it may not be independent, and it certainly was obscure.  Link #8 is to a review in International Viewpoint, (someone should query whether that publication passes WP:GNG)  But in source #10, a review in Monthly Review Martinogk finally brings a source that counts towards notability.  Source #11 shows that Wolf's book is cited in discussions of social activism and sexuality.
 * Source #13 is part of the ISO, and, therefore not independent. Source #12 is an obscure publication.  But I thank Martinogk for bringing sources # 14 and 15.  While profile articles would be better, these are published Q & As with Wolf.
 * Summing up, I still have doubts about whether there is sufficient mention of her to pass WP:GNG, but sources #14, 15, and the book review at source #10 do offer support for an article.,, do you want to take another look at this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The book review speaks to the notability of the book, not the author. The VV piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and invalid for establishing notability, as is the Advocate piece. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and the citation #'s for her work are very low.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:31, 9 November 2015 (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.