Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Cox


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Cox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Civil servant with no inherently notable posts hold. The creator seems to have created a lot of articles pertaining to University of Birmingham people, most of which seem to make the grade of notability, but this one i'm not convinced about. Seems more like padding. Uhooep (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Senior civil servant awarded an honorary degree by a major university and with an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The implicit criticism of the creator seems unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps for now because she seems questionably notable apart from the Olympics groups. SwisterTwister   talk  01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Swister Twister. I thought we were talking about the DJ for a moment, if kept it is worth renaming. Nordic   Dragon  12:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete my sweeps of British media did not reveal sufficient sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just to confirm, for the benefit of those users without access to the full range of UK sources, Cox does indeed have an entry in Who's Who because of her position as a senior Civil Servant. The award suggests she also passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Graemp (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. This is just a civil servant doing their job, there is nothing notable in her work per se. Shritwod (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is Wikipedia and Who's Who is Who's Who. Wikipedia accepts notability based upon measures dictated by sources such as Who's Who. Who's Who does not confer notability on a any "civil servant doing their job" but partly recognises the importance of that job. Also major universities don't give awards like honorary degrees to any "civil servant doing their job". Graemp (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we accept whether Who's Who is a good source or not, there's still the problem of What exactly did Sarah Cox do? Right now, it reads Sarah Cox is a civil servant. The article needs to show that SC accomplished things, not just was a civil servant, and accomplished things serious enough so that newspaper and TV reporters wanted to write about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If she passes WP:ANYBIO#1 and this qualification is reliably sourced in the article with an in-line citation, the article does not need to say much more than that she is a senior civil servant. Graemp (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep there's never been a requirement to show that subjects of articles have achieved anything specific, just that they are notable (for which a Who's Who entry provides good evidence) and that something verifiable can be said about them (which the references in the article demonstrate). Warofdreams talk 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "references" are almost entirely primary sources -- Wordpress, U. Birmingham, Sarah Cox website. I can't verify the Who's Who or ascertain how exclusive it is or what it means.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.