Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Adelle Clark-Coates


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Zoe Adelle Clark-Coates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Only few of the sources mention her name, but isn't given significant coverage in them. The article may also be promotional, and one editor may have a COI, evidently by the style it's been written in. Class455 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Çomment'. A related discussion is taking place at Deletion_review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. She is mentioned in passing in a few sources, but there is not much coverage about her, except written by her (ex. is called an ïnterview", but it seems to be 99% an essay by her). There is a bit of coverage of her winning awards, like, , but both the coverage and the awards seem niche. In other words, the awards don't seem to establish notability, and their coverage is news as normal. It is also low quality coverage, each of those articles seems at least half based on quotes by her. This is really low quality journalism, and overall I don't think she passes WP:BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I think her notability is close to marginal, but it is over the threshold to me, with coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.  A WP:HEY might help.   Montanabw (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, or second choice Merge with The Mariposa Trust. As a recipient of Points of Light and British Citizen Awards, she would seem to clear WP:ANYBIO. There are lots and lots and lots of news sources, but they seem to pretty much overlap the charity, so it might be better to have one good article rather than two "meh" ones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * don't delete a merge or keep are both reasonable IMO. Awards probably push her into the notable range, but those sources that are independent aren't great and so it's debatable if we should have a standalone article.   Hobit (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "'don't delete'" or return to draft if that's an option? I'm happy to continue to edit this in draft space or otherwise. Being new to this, I'm just not as quick as some of you. If the consensus is to merge with The Mariposa Trust I'm happy to have a go at that too. CASGMT (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely PR, the merge is still not convincing since there's nothing to actually merge if it's all still only PR; none of this comes close to becoming convincing as its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Iy is essentially PR< and neither award is significant enough to imply notability  DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 August 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.