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. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Lennox[edit]

Lola Lennox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, Instragram posts, or lack mention of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I strongly and respectfully do not believe this problem exists, as the individual in the article is not lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The article clearly references multiple independent secondary sources covering the subject as the main topic of discussion-- and these are not just small or local sources. For example, there is a reference from Billboard, perhaps the most major international music news source, in which the subject of this article is the main topic of discussion. She made her first appearance singing with her mother, Annie Lennox (Grammy and Oscar winning musician) in a PBS live performance, and the article headline is "Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special". This is not passing mention-- the fact that she was performing was the main topic of the news article. I would also carefully examine the references from The Telegraph 'Just sweet dreams for Annie Lennox's daughter, Lola', the in-depth profile referenced from Teen Vogue, where Lola Lennox is profiled clearly as the main topic of discussion along with her sister Tali Lennox. There is also the reference from Vogue Magazine where Lola Lennox is profiled as the main subject as well. It's all already in the article quite clearly if you look. There are also the stories published by Cosmopolitan, The Express... Lola Lennox is clearly the main topic of discussion, in-depth, from multiple, credible secondary sources that are indeed already referenced. I believe this is already enough to assert notoriety, as the subject has clearly received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It should also be noted that the subject is very famous in the United Kingdom, despite less notoriety internationally, I do not believe this should affect inclusion into Wikipedia. Also of note for anyone about to Google the subject-- she has been recorded as both Lola Lennox and Lola Fruchtmann in the press-- especially in the UK tabloids-- but she is in fact the same person (full name Lola Lennox Fruchtmann, Stage name Lola Lennox). This may make your search for more queries a bit more tricky on first glance. I agree the article does also reference secondary sources where the subject is mentioned but not the main subject-- but these merely fill out more info for the page and do not negate the clearly referenced and demonstrated articles proving notability that I have just discussed. Cheers and much love x- Soulman1125 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see just enough material specifically devoted to Lola from reliable third-party sources to overcome GNG, but just barely. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, seems to just scoot into nobility with Vogue profile and other coverage, but we need to prune the sources. Her instagram is cited waaaay too much. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. On sources mentioned above. She is not as claimed the main topic of discussion of the billboard article, her mother is. The Telegraph piece is very weak, Annie's daughter did not go somewhere, woopdy doo. Teen Vouge is the girls taking about themselves. Italian vogue, another interview. Cosmo, very short piece. Express, very short piece. Sourcing is very poor and falls into tabloid. This page is puff cobbled together from mion mentions, puff, primary and non mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On the Billboard article, I strongly disagree-- it is not a passing mention. I think the title of the article that Billboard chose ("Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special") speaks pretty clearly for itself. Also, may I respectfully remind you and everyone that finding the content of a valid source personally boring is not a valid reason to discredit it as "weak" (and saying "woopdy doo"). Please refer to Wikipedia's Articles to Avoid in Deletion Discussions, specifically WP:IDL. Thanks x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the headline does speak for itself. Only one person is named and it's not Lola. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So the fact that the entire headline is about how she did a major performance with her daughter, Lola Lennox, is discounted because the title says "daughter" instead of her name? Even though the story itself references "Lola Lennox" multiple times and there are two paragraphs in the story directly devoted to describing our subject in the piece? This is not a passing mention. I see what you are trying to project, and where you are coming from, but I'm not buying the argument. This story counts as coverage of her in a major music newssource. It was the entire point of the article-- thus, the title. Cheers x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny how you can get so much from the headline that is simply not there. And once again you are lying about the content. Do you realize that people can actually read the article for themselves?

duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know people can actually read the article for themselves. I hope they do, I don't think all would agree with your reading of it-- as evidenced by how many users have examined my thoughts and the article itself and voted keep. Saying "once again you are lying about the content" is a personal attack, one of many in these discussions despite my repeated attempts to ask for civility from you, and I find them very disheartening. Please keep in mind that the comments from each of us are both recorded and this is the final time I will civilly ask you to refrain from personal attack before seeking further action to resolve this behaviour. Thanks. Soulman1125 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Some reputable sources about her, but weak sources such as Instagram and imdb.com need pruning. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability is not inherited, and while she's borderline notable she doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in any of these articles - the best one was the WSJ article, but then I realised it was about her sister. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Duffbeerforme, or Redirect to Annie_Lennox#Personal_life where more mention can be made. The article is WP:Reference bombed, with no individual source sufficient. None are all of “in depth” and reliable and independent and a secondary source providing commentary. Many need pruning in obviously, but there is no end to the pruning and the article will be reduced to a stub. Verifiable, but not sufficiently covered for her own article. She may yet become Wikipedia-notable, but I feel this is unlikely with a career heading to modelling, modelling rarely generates fresh independent commentary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please keep in mind she is a musician in addition to a model. The article does state that she has been recorded as currently in the studio, so I would expect the possibility of more sources due to this than solely from her modelling career. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the independent secondary source talking about her as a musician? One that says she is good/bad/interesting, whatever? “Annie’s daughter played” is not commentary on the daughter. Lola needs her own reviews to be published. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an article written by Julia Neel from British Vogue-- it states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another article that can contribute to WP:GNG, and I am going to add it to the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage. Please also review my comment below introducing the previously uncited four pages of secondary, independent, and reliable material from Teen Vogue-- one that goes into detail about the subject's basic information. Thanks for your friendly discussion. I hope you find these useful in your analysis. Cheers and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK this is better than trivial, almost there. Can you link and quote the “Teen Vogue” comment, I’m not finding it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, SmokeyJoe. Sure thing regarding Teen Vogue-- give me a few minutes to write you back as the text in the screen capture is likely hard for you to read (the scans of the pages are tiny!)-- but it is there, is readable, and does exist in print. Thanks for your patience. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: Sorry for the delay. Here are the screen caps from Evonne Gambrell's piece in Teen Vogue: First page http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208218/tali-lennox-and-lola-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499987. Second and third page: http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208223/annie-lennox-and-tali-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499985. Fourth and fifth page: http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208228/annie-lennox-and-tali-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499984. Here are a few things we can gather from Evonne's words in the profile: 1) She is the daughter of Annie Lennox (Quote, page 2: "Annie Lennox rocked the eighties with her gender bending style-- but her daughters Tali and Lola are finding a rhythm of their own." 2) Lola and her sister Tali are from London: ("Quote, page 3: "declares the Londoner.") 3) Lola is a classical singer (Quote, page 5: "Despite such feuds, the classical singing musician defiantly beats to the march of her own drum.") In addition, there is also a lot describing her fashion sense (It is Teen Vogue, ha)-- which doesn't necessarily need to be written in her Wikipedia article, obviously-- but many of the passages are indeed secondary and in Gambrell's own words and analysis. It is five pages in a printed, independent, secondary, and reliable source that we can definitely use parts of to piece together our article appropriately, and, I believe, lends our subject towards WP:GNG when we look specifically at the official guidelines and definitions closely. Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @SmokeyJoe: Also, as this conversation is getting a bit splintered and hard to keep track of-- please see my additional Vogue Italia reference at the bottom of the discussion in addition to this. Thanks again and Cheers! x Soulman1125 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: Just making sure I'm not missing something, but there's only one sentence in that article that talks about her specifically - did I miss something, or how is that significant coverage? SportingFlyer talk 08:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:SportingFlyer, I would call that sentence “more than trivial”, but “less than significant”. I have never seen agreement on the threshold of significant coverage, but I think that “two sentences” is an extreme lower limit to even consider. I wish to concede that as far as one sentence goes, that is a pretty good sentence. Not enough for a stand-alone article, I recommend using it to expand for coverage in her mother’s article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: But SmokeyJoe, this British Vogue combined with the other two sources I provided at the bottom should pass WP:GNG alone, don't you think? And if it does-- she should have her own page per guidelines. The Italian Vogue article has enough secondary information in it alone to create an entire profile of who she is and why she is significant. Why would we throw all of that information in an already lengthy Annie Lennox page and convolute it when when our subject passes WP:GNG for a smaller but more organized solo article? I respectfully ask you to please consider my reasoning down the page re: Italian Vogue and look at how this source perfectly fits guidelines-- we have enough secondary information to make an article for our subject, and there is significant coverage in multiple sources per the definitions (it may be contentious, but as far as what the guidelines explicitly read, they do pass-- although British Vogue may be on the very barely pass end, it's still a pass)... What official definition exists that would tell us to delete this page to the contrary? Please review The Italian Vogue sourcing: https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625 There is a TON of information here that is very, very clearly significant secondary, independent, and reliable that I went into detail to explain further below this conversation. A previous user dismissed the whole thing as a primary source interview-- but description of it is plainly false upon further inspection. It is in fact, an entire write up on our subject-- one that included a secondary source write-up, photos from a fashion shoot, and a separate primary interview all together. I think that's a pretty perfect example of sources to base our article on. Again, I ask you to consider my arguments here before you make your final decision. Thanks very much for your perspective. I look forward to hearing your views. Maybe I have missed something, I would love to be enlightened. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: @SportingFlyer: Also my friends, why are we debating what the word "significant" means? That is not what is to be defined here for our analysis of the articles. Wikipedia official guidelines have already defined "significant coverage" for us: Again, directly from WP:GNG, significant coverage is defined explicitly as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sourcing in British Vogue and Italian Vogue especially is more than a trivial mention (look at the official example of trivial mention: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." I don't believe you could argue British Vogue, Teen Vogue, and the Italian Vogue sources cover our subject as that sentence covers "Three Blind Mice"? So it is more than a trivial mention, but does not have to be the main subject of the article. That requirement is fulfilled by all three sources. They all also allow us to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Check and check. So, each of these sources individually passes the the bar to meet the definition of "significant coverage". No where in official guidelines does it say how many words or sentences must be used to parlay the information, simply that we must be able to collect detailed information from them, which, even in the British Vogue, we most definitely can, as I previously demonstrated. The Italian Vogue article does that for an entire page, as the whole write up is plainly about her. All parts cited for our Wiki entry are from lines of information that are secondary information that is from an independent and reliable source. These help her pass multiple sources for WP:GNG. So why, per guidelines, would we not give this subject its own page? Thanks again for listening and look forward to hearing from you. Hope you find my analysis to be worthy of agreement. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As discussed above the Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG purposes since it's not necessarily secondary. As noted the British Vogue piece is very brief. I'd be fine with a redirect per SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: With great respect, I believe the contention in your statement very much conflates the official guidelines rules per analysis of secondary and primary sources-- and leaves the idea that "the [entire] Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG" actually quite incorrect. This is false because this article merely contains a video interview inside of a much larger secondary piece, which should not be disregarded as primary when it is clearly not. Not all elements in the article are the video interview, and what is especially crucial is that all of the specific statements we are actually citing from the source in question for our Wikipedia article are indeed from a secondary source, they are the Vogue author Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis. Just because an article may contain elements that are primary (any words spoken by Lola Lennox in the video interview) does not mean that every statement cited in the article is from a primary source. You are discounting the entire Italian Vogue article as primary when official guidelines explicitly tell us we should not. In official guideline WP:PSTS it very clearly and explicitly states: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Following this guideline allows us to examine the entire Italian Vogue piece and source our secondary information explicitly and solely from Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis, and there is basically the entire sum of information we need about Lola Lennox's entire life and why she is notable in there to then create the skeleton of our article from secondary, independent, and reliable information. The very explicit reason we need this is because of the rule for WP:NOR and because we have Barbara Frigerio to interpret the primary information for us and explain it in her own secondary words and analysis-- we do not have to do any original research to create our article, as she has done it for us, and the source is both independent and reliable. She even explicitly states her own analysis that Lola Lennox is a "young fashion icon" and is "well-known for her talent in fashion." She also explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. I think upon further inspection, and after reviewing the specific points from the guidelines I have laid out for you here, I believe you should agree with them and my arguments clearly laid forth here in good faith. This is clearly enough to build our article from independent, secondary, and reliable sourcing-- and is perhaps the biggest piece that helps our subject pass WP:GNG. Hope you have an excellent day. With respect and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: Hi SportingFlyer, I don't want to speak for SmokeyJoe but I posted my reply to your concern below, and he posted his response after that. I feel he may have concurred with my comments to you regarding the article? I don't want to speak for him so I will let him do that, but please see my comments directly to you below regarding this-- it may clear things up for your concern. Thanks and cheers! x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's only one sentence - hardly significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 02:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's more than one sentence-- and there is a lot of information packed into those lines that can be extracted for the article. As I already noted-- where in the official guidelines can you prove that this does not count? Again, significant coverage is defined in official guidelines as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That's the direct quote from WP:GNG, not a community unvetted opinion essay that too often float in these discussions as the real definitions. It's definitely not a trivial mention, it is more than that-- it may not be the main topic of the article, but it does not need to be. Significant coverage is defined as the area in between both of those gauges quite explicitly. Thanks Soulman1125 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue.co.uk article literally has only one sentence directly covering her in a list of about a dozen people talking about "up and coming stars" seven years ago. It's plainly trivial coverage not suitable for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer-- I hear your concern, and as you may personally think the article loses merit for notability because of its age-- but under official guidelines, it very explicitly does not: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. That section states that notability of the subject does not diminish because of when it received notable coverage-- so I believe that argument is moot in standing with the official guidelines, which is what our decisions must be based on. Also there is not one sentence-- there are two-- one in the opening paragraph that describes "Lola Lennox" as A) "a musical talent" and B) that Vogue believes she is "one to watch in 2011". The image and caption describing her also tells us C) Her age D) that she is a musician E) her mother is Annie Lennox F) her genre is "electro pop fusing classical sounds" G) She is a model H) She has modelled for Topshop and Prada. That is way too much direct information about the subject to be considered a trivial mention, despite, very admittedly, its brevity. Again, the specific definition from official guidelines WP:GNG states very explicitly that "'significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This reference addresses the topic directly and detail, so much so that we can find out eight very different and specific pieces of information about the subject so that we can build the article with the provided secondary evidence. This allows us to not need original research to write the article, as British Vogue, combined with Teen Vogue and the other sources, has done the work for us, to then collect and create the whole article. British Vogue is also reliable, independent, and a secondary source and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Again, I believe this reference allows us to write the article from correct secondary sources, and definitely applies to WP:GNG when we look very specifically at the official guidelines as they are defined. Appreciate your discussion and hope you find my thoughts worthy of your consideration. Cheers. Soulman1125 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone can find in depth, reliable, secondary sources that talk about this person and not family. The sources I can find and in the article have been already dissected above and do not show GNG. Valeince (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an article that has WP:SIGCOV, but was not properly cited and previously included as such in the article. The Teen Vogue profile on the subject does go in depth-- with the author from Teen Vogue speaking on the subject with her own words and analysis for four pages. Teen Vogue is both independent and reliable, and these four pages of content on the subject contain content that is indeed secondary as per official guideline WP:PSTS. Please keep in mind that sources can contain both primary and secondary content as per official guidelines despite having an interview as part of the material ("A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as quoted in official guideline WP:PSTS) The original citation directed the link to a section of the piece that only contained a photo of the subject with brief primary quotes-- Instead, here is a direct link to the secondary sourcing of text from the author's own writing in depth on the subject from Teen Vogue for your consideration. First and second page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346365. Third and fourth page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346353. I believe this should solve the concerns raised by the last three editors for at least one WP:SIGCOV article. In combination with the Vogue Italia article specifically, and other articles (although some may not be the sole topic of the article, but are more than trivial mention) I believe these together should pass WP:GNG Thanks very much and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that I have also found another new piece of significant coverage by Julia Neel in British Vogue to add to the article, and should also be applied to demonstrate the subject's WP:GNG. The article states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another new article that can be added, and can contribute to WP:GNG, I am going to boldy include it in the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, as we can extract eight important and distinct pieces of information about the subject to contribute in building our article from appropriate sourcing, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage towards WP:GNG. Much love to all and hope this is helpful in your assessment. Soulman1125 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment @SmokeyJoe:@SportingFlyer:@Valeince: Here is again another article for your consideration that explicitly talks in detail about our subject-- this time in Italian Vogue by Barbara Frigerio. Vogue Italia is independent, reliable, and in the lines extracted from this article, secondary (the words are Barbara Frigerio's own). https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625. In this article we can extract: Lola is A) A model. B) Daughter of Annie Lennox C) Father is Uri Fruchtmann D) Sister is Tali Lennox E) Her parents divorced in 2000 (already cited in Personal Life section). F) Lola is a singer. G) Lola went to a prestigious music school like her mother Annie. H) That school was the Royal Academy of Music H) She has modelled for Vanity Fair, Jalouse, and Topshop. I) She plays piano and writes music. J) She is from London. Barbara also states her analysis that our subject is a "young fashion icon", is "well-known for her talent in fashion", explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. All of this information is solely and explicitly from Barbara Frigerio's own passages, and are clearly statements that are secondary sourcing. Remember as per official guidelines "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as directly quoted in WP:PSTS. This, in addition to the newly discovered article from British Vogue, and the correct referencing from Teen Vogue alone I believe should settle your desire for secondary sourcing that can be used to build the article's base appropriately per explicit official guidelines, without original research, and establish our subject's passing of WP:GNG. Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the above argument is a good explanation of why the person is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete marginally notable at best, and the promotional pressure is relentless. This is not worth the community's effort to maintain NPOV for. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor article, also missing WP:BIO, the supreme policy. Complete waste of time on this Afd. scope_creep (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BIO. Strikerforce^Talk 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although notability is not inherited, it would be rare for someone with family connections like these not to be in the public eye. I agree it's borderline, but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia. However, the external link to her management must go! Deb (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deb, that is a "Wikipedia is full of bad, gossipy content, so lets have more" argument. Why in the world would you argue that way? I will note that the creator of this page has a glaring WP:APPARENTCOI as is obvious from the amount of unsourced, badly sourced, promotional content and detail they have dumped into WP, which they have adamantly denied. I also do not understand why you are supporting that behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I judge each case on its own merits. Deb (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, other stuff exists is not a viable argument in most situations. Strikerforce^Talk 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument I used - what I was pointing out that the fact several people think an article doesn't demonstrate notability doesn't mean that it won't get through a deletion debate. I would add that I think this is a similar case to Robin-John Gibb. Deb (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia would seem to be synonymous with "other stuff like this exists, so it must be okay"? Strikerforce^Talk 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to take a different view, but not to harass people who disagree with you. I won't be changing my vote. Deb (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall asking you to do any such thing? I'm also not harassing you. I've simply pointed out the flaw in your rationale, which is certainly not anything that would rise to the level of "harassment". To be honest, I'm actually engaging you to attempt to understand your argument, not change it. Strikerforce^Talk 20:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and many above, particularly Duffbeerforme. Per WP:ATD, a redirect to Annie's article might be appropriate, and I would encourage anyone whose position was "weak keep" to consider that alternative. We don't need more weak article's on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another BLP where the coverage does not seem to meet the significant coverage standard. --Bejnar (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2018 (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.