Talk:Catherine Blaiklock/Archive 1

Notability
I created this page originally as a redirect to the Brexit Party as I was not sure she met WP:GNG from a quick glance. Having updated the article today with articles that are on her from The Independent, The Guardian, Eastern Daily Press, The New European, New Statesman, plus her own articles in The Telegraph (the Telegraph is not going to allow you write a political opinion piece if you are a nobody), I think she just about makes it. It is still not a slam-dunk (she would need one good bio in a major UK paper to seal it), but I think the tag is no longer appropriate. I'm pretty sure she would pass an WP:AfD, and things are moving so fast now in her world (i.e. notability increasing daily). Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Found one of her first proper interviews to a full RS, Reuters..
 * Just came across this page. In my view she (marginally) fails notability - her claim to fame is pretty much just that she's the leader of the Brexit Party. She's evidently not a 'nobody' but I think the prior situation of her name being a redirect to the Brexit Party is preferable. I'm not going to start an AfD but I just wanted to suggest folding this article back into the party's article instead. Most of the articles discussing her tend to be about the Brexit Party first with her as an afterthought to that. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reuters gives her WP:SIGCOV, and she only needs one of the other articles to qualify as a WP:RS to technically meet WP:GNG. Her name appears in paragraphs on her in several other news sources.  I think she would pass AfD.  There is plenty of material here that is not in the Brexit Party article, so would not be a Redirect (even if she failed AfD, it would be a Redirect to the Brexit Party to preserve the references and material; her political career is still ongoing).  Her notability is also very current, so further RS are still appearing.  However, I think almost every UKIP-type BLP has been to AfD (some several times, it is a rite of passage), so I suspect that the same fate awaits this BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Insertion of Private Limited Company founding
I believe that inserting a note in the lede about her creating a "private limited company" in November 2018, should not be allowed on two fronts. First, it is fully WP:PRIMARY (we don't know what it behind it, was that the real company, is that the real date, did she actually file it etc etc.). WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is for specific cases where the pure data is unambiguous; here it is not. Secondly, the date the holding company of the Brexit Party was created is not appropriate for the lede. Nobody cares about the date a "private limited company" was created, the only notable fact, and the one that UK newspapers reported on (per the RS in the article), was the date the Brexit Party was launched in January 2019. No reliable independent RS has reported on a November 2018 private limited company founding as it is not notable. 's edit has been reverted three times now by two different editors, I would appreciate they listen to this. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The proposed edit is giving too much weight to a primary source over extensive secondary source reporting. Bondegezou (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)