Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb
that the question at AFD is not "do sources now in the article suffice?" but, rather, "do the RS that exist in the world suffice?"  The reviews I added are neither the sole, nor necessarily the most dispositive, of those that came up on searches, just 2 that happened to come up on a particular set of keywords and that I happened to pick.  I have zero interest in this writer; less in  football. I do think that some editors bring articles to AFD without , that some iVote without searching for sources, and thiat this is unfair to some subjects, such as writer's whose careers took place in the 20th century or earlier, or who have non-unique names, and who therefore may not come up on a quick google search.  The implication that unless the sources are on the page, and, sometimes, that unless the article has been edited to remove the  aspects so many articles begin with, changes the nature of AFD.  This requires an enormous time investment, an investment far beyond the relatively simple 20-30 minute process of figuring out the proper keywords to use in searching a news archives, figuring out which archives to search, and bringing a sampling of those sources to AFD or to the page itself. (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Peterson (author), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman
— User:E, 11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:PROMO (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)