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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

It doesn't seem this woman is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article is very short and many things in it are unsourced. If this page is not deleted, it should probably be merged/redirected to Brady Campaign which is a notable page. GladiusHellfire (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:WRITER, her book received a fair bit of press coverage (I added various reviews etc). I also added quotes indicating her importance as a gun control activist (separate from her husband). She has received enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG in my opinion, much related to her book, as well as her campaigning and claims she may have violated gun-control laws about background checks for a rifle she bought. Being short and unsourced are not themselves reasons for deletion, but it's a bit longer now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think shes notable as an author, sorry. Anyone can write a book, doesn't necessarily make them notable. OJ Simpson wrote a book, but his notability comes from him being a criminal and in sports, not his book. IronKnuckle (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She meets WP:AUTHOR: her book has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Please read Wikipedia policies before commenting, and then try and explain how she doesn't meet them. WP:PERNOM is not a valid argument for deletion discussions either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think you misunderstand what Knuckle is trying to say, and that's that she's not notable for being an author. Her Brady Campaign is notable, but not necessarily her. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BIO. Mrs. Brady was one of the most prominent American gun control advocates of the 1980s. The article's references are also in order. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's more the Brady Campaign that did that if anything, which is why I suggested a merge to that article. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - CBS Evening News called this leading political activist "one of few people who got Congress to act on gun control" through shepherding passage of the Brady Bill to require gun background checks. Clear GNG pass, whether or not she passes under the special guidelines for writers. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems the notable Brady Campaign did more about that then her. Why not merge this article to that one? Seems reasonable. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's nothing in the article that's unsourced. She's a very prominent political figure. Flyte35 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How does she pass WP:POLITICIAN? GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a politician. That's not the point. She meets general notability for people. She's received extensive media coverage and has made significant impact in her field, control control advocacy.Flyte35 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Obviously notable. And I hope we are not about to see another spurt in nominations of notable subjects who happen to favor gun control. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If they are not notable subjects, then it doesn't matter what political position they take. This article deserves a vote on the AfD. I dont think it's a "Snow Keep" candidate. If it's found notable for some reason it will be kept right? GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep/. Another bad faith, preposterous AFD nomination from a recently arrived SPA with a political agenda. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hey Wolfowitz, please assume good faith! WP:AOBF IronKnuckle (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as a gun control advocate and as the wife of one of the few subjects ever wounded in a presidential assassination attempt. 'Article is very short' is also not a proper nomination reason as BLP's in general are under different standards than general articles. Going through nominator's edits suggests user is pushing against articles involving gun control and anything anti-UFC, so I agree with HW's observations above. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Assume good faith please WP:AOBF. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. The motivation of nominator is not important. All users edit based on their interests and beliefs. A user opposed to gun control has an understandable interest in trying to cut down entries related to gun control. Some of them are no doubt worthy of deletion. But this is ridiculous. Sarah Brady passes WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Q.E.D. Flyte35 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Had massive notability in the 80s as a gun control advocate.TCO (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep - Clearly passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (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.