Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon McMahon
: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 SNOW/withdrawn__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
=[[:Sharon McMahon]]=
:{{la|1=Sharon McMahon}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Sharon McMahon}})
McMahon is a former high school government teacher. McMahon lacks independent in-depth coverage and fails to satisfy notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Law, Politics, Internet, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. What's wrong with e.g. the Time source already in the article? I also found more reviews/coverage of her book, which the nominator neglected to mention [https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/sharon-mcmahon/the-small-and-the-mighty/][https://www.startribune.com/duluth-writer-sharon-mcmahons-book-is-a-fun-dive-into-history-much-like-her-podcast-and-instagram/601145543][https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/11/01/sharon-mcmahon-history-book/] Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Bewildered by this nomination, TBH. There is clearly ample coverage presented in the article to pass WP:GNG. I mean, TIME, good grief! WP:BEFORE really not required... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: the article is clearly passes WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Adequate high-quality sources in the article to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that I was mistaken. Sorry. Firecat93 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.