Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Gratton


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Gratton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on non-notable person. Article on this person previosly deleted: see Articles for deletion/Sarah-Jayne Gratton. I'd speedy this, but being unable to view original article am not sure it meets the strict criteria. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is a considerable improvement over the deleted article. It's no longer a promotional piece as suggested and has been deemed to be within the scope of WikiProject Biography, as indicated on the article's talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the new article is significantly better than the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbaniston (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentAbove added by article creator, a SPA. Article has unfounded claims and relies on flaky sources.TheLongTone (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would regard Cambridge Business magazine, In Spire magazine and Glyndŵr University as credible secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbaniston (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You might. The university I'll buy: it's used to support the claim of an MBA. The Cambridge Business magazine is a useless cite, since the url just dumps you at the head of a 100plus page pdf document. As to the last, I beg to differ.TheLongTone (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to directly link to the article in Cambridge Business magazine. The article is on page 69? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 January 2014


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a whiff of notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources provided in this article establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 January 2014
 * Where, I don't see many. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The interview with Gratton in the Cambridge magazine is comprehensive and confirms her notability, along with her early career as an actress. There are other articles, which are referenced too; again, establishing notability and validates the Wiki article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the interview in Cambridge Business is pretty fluffy, but it is substantial and independent as far as I can tell. She's borderline, but I think just squeaks over the WP:GNG bar.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * keep The Cambridge magazine piece (which starts on page 67,, as I have added to the cite) is enough, aand there is significantly more. The In Spire piece also looks quite useful as a cite. DES (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The In Spire piece is useless as a cite, since it principally selfmade assertions. It's not exactly a heavyweight source, and the Cambridge magazine is little better. The woman is a relentless self-promoter: it would be remarkable if there was zero coverageTheLongTone (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (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.