Deletion of Katie Ascough

Comment: Per . Article should be heavily rewritten. Other than that, it easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG)

Comment: While the nominator has not put forward any deletion rationale (and should have, and should frankly should have known that they should have), in terms of , the content here objectively meets . In that a very quick check https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Katie+Ascough&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 confirms that it was wholescale "copy and pasted" from the sources on which it is based. While some of the copy/pasted content is passed-off as quotes and the like, the rest is not clarified as representing the original authors' work(s). And should be deleted for that reason. Alone. (We can't just wholescale copy and paste from 3 or 4 news articles, and pass it off as an article. We have long had policies in this regard. This is not new information for anyone. Including the editor who created this article.) Otherwise, in terms of  and , it seems to me that any article on this subject (if written by an editor not blatantly plagiarising the work of others and pared back to the relevant facts) would fall within . Specifically, that the principal claim to notability arises from the subject's election to (and subsequent ejection from) a student representative body. Which, while it generated column inches at the time, all related to (effectively) the same event. In short: the current article should be deleted. As blatant copyvio/plagarism. And anyone contemplating replacing it (with something self-penned) should consider BLP1E
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO||WP:G12||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BLP1E)