Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Phyllis Schlafly. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Majority of article comes from WP:PRIMARY sources. Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly but there isn't enough to justify its own article. मल्ल (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly. While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage. If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this. Reywas92Talk 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Almost entirely sourced from Schlafly's own book. Her Wikipedia bio Phyllis Schlafly does a much better and concise coverage of her life and political advocacy, and is appropriately sourced.  — Maile  (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Phyllis Schlafly per nom and above, doesn’t really make sense to be a standalone. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2024 (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.