Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Corcoran


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sophie Corcoran

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Individual does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. Loss of a local election, and semi-frequent TV appearances giving political opinions appears to be the extent of her notability. While a WP:BEFORE search does return many results regarding Corcoran, the vast majority of these are passing mentions of a semi-controversial opinion that she has (say something controversial -> get reaction -> article) and are non-notabile in nature.  Skipple  ☎  19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and Women.  Skipple   ☎  19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Considering her "opinions" keep getting covered by the media, I’d argue that WP:GNG is met here and I think she'll probably end up becoming the ginger Katie Hopkins. However failing that I’d suggest a redirect to 2021 Thurrock Council election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRItoday (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also noting that nominator is left-wing, and nomination may be a result of WP:COI and WP:BIASED MRItoday (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I resent this borderline personal attack. It has no basis in reality nor evidence to back up this claim on my biases and personal political opinions. My nomination has nothing to do with the individual's political opinions, rather her lack of notability.  Skipple  ☎  20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User MRItoday indeffed for disruptive editing. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

* Keep her commentary and opinions receive constant in-depth coverage in media, which suggests that Corcoran meets WP:BASIC. – Meena • 20:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Meena: could you cite that in-depth coverage, please? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Innisfree987: No sarcastic comments please - this is a deletion discussion, not a playground. Thank you.MRItoday (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ? It’s standard to ask for references at AfD, as WP:SIGCOV is a decisive factor. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if whoever strikes out a comment or !vote could indicate why this was done and by whom. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm capable of admitting that there is clearly a majority of delete votes here but I'd suggest to have her redirected (with protection if this becomes neccessary). I created this article in a good condition and removed it from my watchlist shortly after due to the influx of edits. It has since become trash. Redirect it and allow for a creation in the future when she meets more notability guidelines than WP:BASIC. – Meena • 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * for clarification, where are you suggesting the redirect point to?  Skipple  ☎  13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose she is redirected to 2021 Thurrock Council election, where she is listed, with a historical redirect tag on the redirect. I didn't get your ping btw, as the signature must be in the same edit as the ping for it to work. – Meena • 18:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Appearing on Good Morning Britain once to talk about some personal beefs, and writing an opinion piece and being quoted for her opinion is not notable coverage. In college in 2022, the subject failed to win after running for president of her university's student union, which is also unremarkable coverage. Notability of the subject clearly has not been shown via sources that are mentions by the media and not extensive coverage. The Wiki page appears to be promotional. Fails to pass WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete agree with above, not much found beyond her giving an opinion on xyz subject. Nothing of substantial length about her as a person. This is about the best that mentions her, and it's a short few sentences . The NZ Herald is a RS, but it seems tangentially about her, more talking about a rejection letter she got. This in the Guardian  is sort-of about her. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But the NZ article also appears in the Daily Mail, so I'd discount it as a source. It feels click-baitey with all the ads that show up before and after the "article" Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. Her failure to win a local council seat does not meet NPOL. Cowlibob (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, including per and WP:PROMO, because reports about, e.g. her viral Tweet about a job rejection letter that included chicken puns, and her allegations of bullying, do not provide much independent depth to support WP:BASIC notability. The Guardian does not add much secondary context, e.g. "a maverick rightwinger with an already significant profile on GB News and talkRadio [...] A slip recently, where a separate account replied as if they were her, suggests that her online profile may be a group effort – not exactly a sockpuppet account, since she is definitely real; more of a sock chorus." The WP:REFBOMBing in the article, e.g., seems to further emphasize a lack of sufficient support for notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the article edit history, including as described in the comment by about what happened after the article was initially created, as well as the noted sock activity, e.g., may support the addition of some WP:SALT to the article title. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as nommed. (I was expecting to find enough RS sigcov to satisfy GNG, but didn't.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2022 (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.