Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Coryton


 * 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 keep. The general consensus is that the coverage about Laura Coryton is sufficient to merit a biographical about her, independent of the article(s) about the campaigns she is involved in. Deryck C. 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Laura Coryton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Laura Coryton *as an individual* does not seem to have been the subject of a significant amount of coverage, even though her laudable campaign has. Happypoems (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the campaign may be notable, but there doesn't seem to be any otherwise relevant notability of Laura Coryton herself. 86.138.105.227 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Media coverage would appear to be adequate. Deb (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only major journalistic article about the individual that I could find was http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/tampon-tax-how-laura-coryton-started-the-stop-taxing-periods-campaign-while-still-a-student-a6891336.html. That is a major national publication but I can't find any others of similar weight - can you suggest some? Happypoems (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep there wouldn't have been a campaign without her activism. I find articles about her in The Telegraph, Marie Claire Magazine, Gannett Newshopper, ITVHuff Post], Buzz Feed, how she organized the campaign in New Statesman, Vice Magazine. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost none of those seem to be 'articles about her', but rather mentions of her in pages with a broader scope. The only one mentioned that I could call an 'article about her' is the news shopper one; I'd suggest that 'news shopper' is a relatively minor source.Happypoems (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As SusunW has demonstarted, easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Without their work or campaigns many people would not be notable. The shy Wright brothers, for example, would not be notable if their airplane was unsuccessful. Rosa Parks would not be remembered without her protest. The fact is, our work does definitely define us as people and subjects of Wiki articles can be notable for their accomplishments. There is enough here to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * People can be notable for their accomplishments - but I would imagine that the majority of people who know both Parks and the Wrights couldn't tell you who Laura Coryton was. Of course this might change in time, but at present it seems the campaign itself would justify a page more than the individual.Happypoems (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of an encyclopedia is to have a way for people to look up information about people, places, and things that they don't know about. :-) Our concern is to make sure that we have content that can be verified in reliable sources not to decide whether they are worthy of an article. That is the case with Coryton. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are of course quite right that if Wikipedia concerns itself purely with common knowledge it's fairly useless. It's not true that there's no concern about notability - that's what WP:GNG is all about. Whether that's a good approach or not seems to be to be different discussion. Happypoems (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per . --Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails notability as an individual. The links provided by  SusunW relate to the campaign and promoting the petition providing little to enhance an article about Coryton herself. Lame Name (talk)
 * Sorry, Lame Name, we'll have to agree to disagree. The campaign is not promoting itself. Coryton is driving it. She is credited with pushing it to France and Italy, among other places. In fact, you will be hard-pressed to find mention of the campaign that does not discuss her role in it. Coryton, and her actions made this an international phenomenon. The movement did not spread without her and her actions are acknowledged. While one may assert her name is not known to the majority of people in the world, to those who are aware that there is a tampon tax, she is known. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that seems to me to point strongly to the creation of a 'tampon tax' / 'feminine hygiene products tax' page which would provide suitable context in which to talk about Laura Coryton's achievements in this field in Europe, rather than in a disembodied way as in the current article. Happypoems (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * " you will be hard-pressed to find mention of the campaign that does not discuss her role in it." That is the point.  There is nothing notable outside the campaign on which an article about the individual could be established.  Lame Name (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contrary to the delete !voters assertions there are sources about Coryton as an individual in the article and the list provided by, and they're from very reputable news outlets (HuffPo and the BBC, at least). The (extensive) coverage of her campaign also frequently includes non-trivial biographical information about her. Yes, she is solely notable for her tampon tax campaign, but she is still notable, and we have plenty of biographies of campaigners who are only known for championing one issue. Joe Roe (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Your links (particularly 2 and 3) are further examples of why she fails to meet the notability requirements.  The circular referencing of the BBC campaign is becoming more bizarre by the hour 82.22.169.139 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? Biographical profiles in major media outlets are examples of not being notable? You realise that we rely on reliable media organisations and publishers to tell us what is notable, right? So the BBC saying "this person needs a Wikipedia article" is about a big a hint as you're ever going to get. I really don't understand your logic here. (Also, psst: a !vote is not a vote). Joe Roe (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "is about a big a hint as you're ever going to get" not if the author of the article doesn't understand what is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the author knows our policies, but in many ways "notable" to Wikipedia is synonymous with "what journalists choose to write about" and here we have a journalist at a major organisation saying that they consider Coryton important. Joe Roe (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was disappointed that the writer of that article clearly didn't pay regard to what Wikipedia notability entails; later down the page they imply that if someone does something that 'goes viral', that means the person is notable. Wikipedia isn't a proxy social network. Incidentally I agree that Coryton is important. We all are, including many of us not on wikipedia who spend our lives doing equally praiseworthy things! Happypoems (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - She started and won a significant campaign which has become a global campaign. There is more information about her too, such as interviews with the BBC. I think there will ultimately be too much information about her missed out if she is only written about on a dedicated page to the global Tampon Tax campaign, if or when that is created --LegereScire (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax. Despite what the BBC report, there are insufficient sources providing substantial, in-depth coverage of her to meet WP:BIO. She is only notable in regards to the Tampon Tax, so mention her importance there. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- AS the initiator of a successful campaign to change the law, I consider her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sources to provide information about her and her activism. Agree that it passes the threshold for having stand alone article instead of content about her in on the page about the campaign. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a page about the campaign yet, is there? Which is part of the issue here - does it make sense that an individual is seen as notable through initiating a campaign which isn't itself notable enough to have a page? Happypoems (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is well documented that Wikipedia is missing many article about notable women and their works. The media is writing about it regularly now and will continue to do so. It is fantastic that the media is collaborating with existing Wikipednians to identify the missing content, and to provide a forum for attracting new Wikipedians/Wikimedians to write about it. And that is precisely what happened here. Coryton was correctly identified as someone with plenty of reliable sources who was missing an article. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per SusunW, plenty of coverage Jooojay (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a poor advert Women in Red and volunteers in 13 countries have trained hundreds of new editors this week. We have told them that if a person is described in several reliable sources like the BBC, The Observer and the Guardian. We have told them that there is a trustworthy system for deleting spurious articles. Rhetorical pause. I get the impression that the nominator feels that we are following a campaign by the person described. Logicbomb. This discussion just adds to the story? Keep (SNOW)? Victuallers (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't feel that 'being described in several reliable sources' is up to the level described in WP:SIGCOV, i.e. 'significant coverage', addressing the topic 'directly and in detail' (otherwise anyone who was the subject of a national news story would get a wikipedia page). If that's not the general feeling, no problem at all... it just means that the bar for notability is a lot lower than I thought it was (and that there are a couple of my friends who don't have pages but should!). Regarding your second point, which campaign are you referring to? The tampon tax campaign, or the campaign to get more women onto Wikpedia? I can't quite make sense of what you'd mean by either...Happypoems (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well covered in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax per WP:NOPAGE, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. We need to keep history in perspective here. Every single source I see discusses the tax and the petition, with brief mentions about the subject. In some of them, it simply quotes the subject. I don't see why this needs a separate article. We create separate articles only when the coverage increases to such an amount that creating a separate article is absolutely necessary. Over here the petition has received coverage and if there should be a standalone article at all, it should be about the petition. In addition, using sources like Five women who aren’t on Wikipedia but should be is seriously absurd. I mean this is like using the Dictionary of non-notable Artists to support a claim of someone being notable. Other sources such as Nesta are essentially profiles on a private organisation's website? The petition might be notable but the subject isn't independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination fails to consider sensible alternatives to deletion and so fails WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if there was an extant page for the campaign, merging and redirecting to there is what I would have suggested. There isn't, so I didn't! Happypoems (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Your enthusiasm for your deletion case is not matched by the reaction of multiple editor, Happypoems. Give it up. Passes WP:GNG by a country mile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake my participation in the discussion for a rabid desire to delete the page. If the outcome of the discussion is that the page is fine, then of course that's the outcome and there's no problem there. I do feel that participating in a discussion that I initiated is fairly reasonable! If by 'Give it Up', you mean withdraw the nomination, I still see more reasoning from those suggesting 'merge' and 'delete'. WP:CLOSEAFD Happypoems (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to tampon tax. Many of the above responses do not appear to reflect on the content of the sources or make policy-backed arguments. I merged the refs I could and ended up writing the separate tampon tax article while responding to this. Coryton is an activist in a larger campaign—the sources cover her as such and thus so should we. I read through the sources and, as usual, the tell is to find the central idea of each source: (primarily) the tampon tax in the UK, (secondarily) activism against the tax, and (tertiarily) Coryton's personal activism. So the vast majority of the news pertaining to Coryton is really about the tax, of which she is a part. We have no biographical sources from reliable, secondary sourcing—her background, her life, her other activism—it's all in the context of this one element. We handle these situations with summary style: cover the topic in an existing article and if the section grows to become undue weight and the sources warrant more expansion, split it out into its own article. I'd additionally argue that a whole lot of context is lost by discussing her campaign without any of the background on what the tampon tax activism was like in the UK outside of her petition and participation. Tampon (and Peterkingiron above) make it sound as if this is all her campaign, and some sources do too, but the vast majority of the sourcing credits her mainly for the popular, online petition and "stop taxing periods, period" campaign. I looked and have yet to find any more depth of her campaigning. Until there is sufficient source content for a full treatment of the topic, Coryton is best covered in context at tampon tax.Eye close font awesome.svg czar  05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! I started Tax on feminine hygiene products yesterday. We might need to merge the articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, merging and redirecting to a page dedicated to the campaign clearly seems the best course of action to me. The point about then being able to place personal achievements in proper context is a particularly strong. If, et al. can sort out what that page will be, i'd be happy to withdraw this nomination in favour of that action. as below, suggested redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax Happypoems (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As these other articles were written to develop this topic, they are content forks or splits. As they were inspired by the article in question, there is now no question of deleting the original – see WP:MAD.  Happypoems should please withdraw his deletion nomination as it's not happening. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These are not content forks or splits, and no information was copied from Laura Coryton. As such, it is ineligible for WP:MAD. More importantly, the articles by Czar and me are about the topic in general - which is notable and is happening across the world. I am specifically opposed to having a standalone article about the subject because it puts undue weight on their contribution. The fact that a campaigner from UK somehow deserves a separate page smacks of WP:GEOBIAS when we consider the worldwide context of the campaign. AFD is a discussion about whether a topic deserves a standalone article - and not a binary "keep" or "delete". We often go with "merge"/"Redirect" as a better way to preserve content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no reason we can have articles about other campaigners in other parts of the world too. We have countless articles about other feminists.  The more, the merrier. Andrew D. (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The more pages, the merrier is not how Wikipedia is organised - hence why merge discussions happen all the time. Of course more campaigners can be mentioned and it would be good to do so in a way that maintains balance. Happypoems (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure that per WP:SKCRIT I can withdraw the nomination - the criteria that "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected" is not satisfied. Feel free to educate me though this is the first time I've participated in this process. Happypoems (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax per WP:NOPAGE('Does other information provide needed context?') and WP:BIO1E ("The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. "). Happypoems (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content should be driven by reliable sources. There are reliable sources that are answering these questions: 1) Who are the person/people behind the global campaign to remove taxes on women's sanitary hygiene product? 2) Who are the prominent young feminists and what is their main areas of interest? The media pieces cited in this discussion and used to reference Coryton's article answer these questions and provide plenty of content to meet GNG for a stand alone article for Coryton. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG, sourcing is adequate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets even my notoriosuly pernickerty standards for inclusion of biographies. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article in its current state demonstrates fulfilment of notability criteria. --LukeSurlt c 10:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.