Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Moser
Being a founder of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia, if the |reliable source coverage ''about'' her ''in'' that role is lacking. There ''may'' be a valid claim of notability per  for her ''writing'', but this article isn't showing that — writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their books exist either, but must be the subject of reliable source coverage ''about'' their writing.Going over the sources here, we have: (1) a primary source "staff" profile on the website of an organization with which she's directly affiliated; (2) a directory entry which verifies the existence of her father but contains ''no'' content whatsoever about ''Laura''; (3) ''one'' acceptable source about her writing; (4) an unreliable source |blog; (5) self-written content about herself; (6) self-written content about herself; (7) an article about her husband which contains no mention of Laura at all; (8) a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't ''about'' her; (9) a paywalled article which ''may'' be an acceptable source but is impossible for me to |verify at all; (10) another piece of self-written content about herself; (11) a piece which verifies a completely tangential fact about her future election competitor while containing no mention of Moser at all; (12) a piece which verifies a completely tangential fact about the district where she's running while containing no mention of Moser at all.In other words, what we have here is ''not'' the quality or depth or breadth of sourcing that it takes to make her notable either as the founder of an organization or as a writer. So no prejudice against recreation in the future ''if'' her notability and sourceability beefs up, but nothing present here right now is enough to get her an article today
— User:Bearcat, 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:BLOGS||WP:V (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)