321:. At least five non-trivial news articles about this person in reputably published, reliable sources establishes notability. That does not mean this particular text is adequate. I copyedited it a little, and flagged a few obvious things for cleanup, but even if those are fixed, most readers are going to wonder "why does Knowledge (XXG) have an article about this person?" It's unclear how this person is actually significant in and to the world at all. I've had more articles written about me than this person has (and for better reasons) but would oppose me having an article here. That said, we do need more articles on women, including living, young ones, so give some leeway. But "I used social media to get involved with political candidate, and got myself some news coverage because social media is a hot topic these days" really doesn't cut it. That's not an encyclopedia-worthy bio.
21:
124:
correctly. For example, you should begin a discussion here prior to launching a RfC as stated "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally
143:
Point taken on rfc. Regarding article; can't help but think wikipedia is being used as a launch platform for a future career in politics or the media by pushy parents. If wikipedia is meant to be the equivalent of the
British tabloid press in encyclopedic form then so be it. An interesting addition
150:
I don't think this article reads as a CV. It is well-sourced and more in-depth sourcing actually exists. I created and mostly wrote the article and I'm not a parent of
Tomlinson (nor have I ever met her) so the claim this article is being used as a "launch platform" by "pushy parents" is plainly
282:
BLP1E does not apply here. Tomlinson has received significant, in-depth, on-going coverage. BLP1E applies when a person is notable exclusively for one event and "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". This is clearly not the case.
58:
There is no consensus in this RfC on whether Abby
Tomlinson is notable. There is a consensus that this is a malformed RfC in that if editors wish to delete the article, they should nominate the article for deletion at
125:
expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." You have also failed to follow the formatting and technical directions and posted no intelligible RfC statement.
207:
If you look at the sources most of them come from the months after the general election and the
Milifandom and relate to her other political and media activities. Much of the coverage is in-depth as well.
152:
31:
90:
Is this article a joke? It reads like a college application CV. Twitter squables and hashtags are not grounds for an encyclopidic article. Notability
259:
I think this RFC is a bit ill formed, if editors seek to delete the article on grounds of non-notability they should nominate the article for
60:
333:
144:
to the article, considering the age of the subject would be Abby's parent's connection to either the media or the Labour party.
355:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
84:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
178:- The page could use some improvements but its a stretch to say that it reads like a "college application CV". However,
27:
309:
288:
213:
160:
130:
330:
241:
227:
187:
20:
99:
222:
Is her presence on social media and political activism after the general election notable though?
268:
64:
264:
179:
91:
305:
284:
209:
156:
126:
324:
68:
260:
121:
117:
237:
223:
202:
183:
111:
95:
236:
FYI - I'm not opposing the page's existence, just think it could use some cleanup :)
182:
can probably be applied here. I don't see her notability outside the
Milifandom.
120:. Not clear what your point is. Also, you have not followed the process for a
37:
304:
I don't know about the article but this RfC is a joke. Summoned by bot.
342:
313:
292:
273:
245:
231:
217:
191:
164:
134:
103:
15:
54:
NO CONSENSUS ON NOTABILITY, CONSENSUS ON MALFORMED RFC:
56:
8:
267:argument for this article to be deleted.
155:in politics/the Labour party/the media.
151:wrong.. From what I can see her parents
61:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
78:The following discussion is closed.
147:Btw I have nowt to do with Mensch.
14:
351:The discussion above is closed.
319:Passes notability, but needs work
269:
30:on 17 April 2017. The result of
19:
26:This article was nominated for
116:I believe this article passes
1:
322:
94:criterion certainly applies.
71:) 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
372:
353:Please do not modify it.
343:11:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
314:21:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
293:22:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
274:01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
246:02:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
232:02:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
218:02:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
192:01:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
165:22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
135:00:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
104:22:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
81:Please do not modify it.
73:
45:
44:
363:
341:
271:
206:
153:are not involved
115:
83:
23:
16:
371:
370:
366:
365:
364:
362:
361:
360:
359:
339:
200:
109:
79:
74:
55:
50:
12:
11:
5:
369:
367:
358:
357:
347:
346:
345:
337:
316:
298:
297:
296:
295:
277:
276:
263:. I can see a
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
234:
195:
194:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
145:
138:
137:
88:
87:
86:
53:
52:
51:
49:
46:
43:
42:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
368:
356:
354:
349:
348:
344:
335:
332:
329:
327:
320:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
270:Darwinian Ape
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
247:
243:
239:
235:
233:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
204:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
173:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
148:
146:
142:
141:
140:
139:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
113:
108:
107:
106:
105:
101:
97:
93:
85:
82:
76:
75:
72:
70:
66:
62:
47:
40:
39:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
352:
350:
325:
318:
306:Coretheapple
301:
285:AusLondonder
256:
210:AusLondonder
175:
157:AusLondonder
127:AusLondonder
89:
80:
77:
57:
35:
326:SMcCandlish
238:Meatsgains
224:Meatsgains
203:Meatsgains
184:Meatsgains
48:Notability
38:Milifandom
112:1812ahill
96:1812ahill
36:merge to
265:WP:BLP1E
180:WP:EVENT
92:WP:EVENT
28:deletion
302:Comment
257:Comment
176:Comment
122:WP:RFC
118:WP:GNG
65:Cunard
310:talk
289:talk
242:talk
228:talk
214:talk
188:talk
161:talk
131:talk
100:talk
69:talk
34:was
340:ⱷ≼
336:≽ⱷ҅
261:AFD
323:—
312:)
291:)
244:)
230:)
216:)
190:)
163:)
133:)
102:)
63:.
338:ᴥ
334:¢
331:☏
328:☺
308:(
287:(
240:(
226:(
212:(
205::
201:@
186:(
159:(
129:(
114::
110:@
98:(
67:(
41:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
