Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria 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The result was Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) --Non-Dropframe _talk 02:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Coates[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for lack of "significant coverage". Two sources, one of which may not even be about the subject (it's behind a paywall) does not fulfill this requirement. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). The article could definitely benefit from addition of more sources but the subject herself seems to pass WP:GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly under-researched nom - the first page of ghits has interviews with Esquire, the Nation Review, something we can't read on the WSJ & other significant coverage. Please don't waste everyone's time, Yoninah! You are supposed to look beyond what the article itself has before launching an AFD. And in this case you don't need to look far. You could have added plenty of sources in the time it has taken you to do this. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so could you. I am withdrawing this AFD, but I will not pass it for DYK in the shape it's in. Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.