Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Dodd

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dodd

[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)

Sources are either to her own website or a blog. A Google News search brings up literally no coverage about her aside from one or two blogs. Seems to mostly just be promotional as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!}01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete Oh, Lord. Subject is completely non-notable and the article isn't even hiding the fact that it's promotional. How it's stuck around for eighteen years is mind-blowing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11. CoconutOctopus talk 06:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There exists some coverage on Dodd, such as this 2011 article from PBS on unschooling. Disagree with other votes on G11. Clearly sourcing is lacking and some of its content is unencyclopedic, but it shouldn't be outright speedily deleted. Bridget (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some coverage, but it doesn’t really seem to be significant. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline G11, but definitely fails GNG Noah ^💬 17:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not G11 (it's trying to be encyclopedic) but clearly no RS showing notability. (and even if it met a Speedy criteria, if it's been up for 18 years it's worth having the full discussion; but I could say an Admin could see the WP:SNOW and call it done). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my reasoning for not G11ing it. Been up for so long LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!}23:48, 27 October 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.