Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Richardson

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Richardson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NBIO. Pinging @Narutolovehinata5, W9793, MaranoFan, and AirshipJungleman29:. Laun chba ller 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Laun chba ller 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source fulfills the criteria at WP:GNG; everything else is either non-independent or lacking in WP:SIGCOV. Thus, WP:NBIO is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She's published opinion pieces, but that's all I can find. Source 5 is a RS per the Highlighter tool, but I don't see much else we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion if no further RS can be identified to fulfill WP:SIGCOV. W9793 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's done some interesting work but the lack of SIGCOV means I would say Delete. Fritzmann (message me) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 27 March 2024 (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.