Deletion of Lola Lennox

Comment: re|SmokeyJoe}}{{re|SportingFlyer}}{{re|Valeince}} '''Here is again another article for your consideration that explicitly talks in detail about our subject-- this time in ''Italian Vogue'' by Barbara Frigerio.''' '''''Vogue Italia'' is independent, reliable, and in the lines extracted from this article, secondary (the words are Barbara Frigerio's own).''' https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625. In this article we can extract: Lola is A) A model. B) Daughter of Annie Lennox C) Father is Uri Fruchtmann D) Sister is Tali Lennox E) Her parents divorced in 2000 (already cited in Personal Life section). F) Lola is a singer. G) Lola went to a prestigious music school like her mother Annie. H) That school was the Royal Academy of Music H) She has modelled for Vanity Fair, Jalouse, and Topshop. I) She plays piano and writes music. J) She is from London. Barbara also states her analysis that our subject is a "young fashion icon", is "well-known for her talent in fashion", explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. All of this information is solely and explicitly from Barbara Frigerio's own passages, and are clearly statements that are secondary sourcing. Remember '''as per official guidelines "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one,''' and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as directly quoted in . This, in addition to the newly discovered article from ''British Vogue'', and the correct referencing from ''Teen Vogue'' alone I believe should settle your desire for secondary sourcing that can be used to build the article's base appropriately per explicit official guidelines, without original research, and establish our subject's passing of . Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. '''Much love and cheers x
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:GNG)

Comment: notability is not inherited, and while she's borderline notable she doesn't have  in any of these articles - the best one was the WSJ article, but then I realised it was about her sister
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per Duffbeerforme, or '''Redirect''' to Annie_Lennox#Personal_life where more mention can be made. The article is eference bombed, with no individual source sufficient.  None are all of “in depth” and reliable and independent and a secondary source providing commentary. Many need pruning in obviously, but there is no end to the pruning and the article will be reduced to a stub. Verifiable, but not sufficiently covered for her own article.  She may yet become Wikipedia-notable, but I feel this is unlikely with a career heading to modelling, modelling rarely generates fresh independent commentary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: There '''''is''''' an article that has , '''but was not properly cited and previously included as such in the article.''' The ''Teen Vogue'' profile on the subject does go in depth-- with the author from ''Teen Vogue'' speaking on the subject with her own words and analysis for four pages. '''''Teen Vogue'' is both independent and reliable''', and these four pages of content on the subject contain content that is indeed secondary as per official guideline . Please keep in mind that sources can contain both primary and secondary content as per official guidelines despite having an interview as part of the material ("A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as quoted in official guideline ) '''The original citation directed the link to a section of the piece that only contained a photo of the subject with brief primary quotes-- Instead, here is a direct link to the secondary sourcing of text from the author's own writing in depth on the subject from ''Teen Vogue'' for your consideration.''' First and second page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346365. Third and fourth page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346353.  I believe this should solve the concerns raised by the last three editors for at least one  article. In combination with the ''Vogue Italia'' article specifically, and other articles (although some may not be the sole topic of the article, but are more than trivial mention) I believe these together should pass  Thanks very much and cheers x
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:PSTS||WP:PSTS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: Very poor article, also missing , the supreme policy. Complete waste of time on this Afd
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Please note that '''I have also found another new piece of significant coverage by Julia Neel in ''British Vogue'' to add to the article, and should also be applied to demonstrate the subject's .''' The article states "Josephine de la Baume, '''Lola Lennox''', Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." ''British Vogue'' is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another new article that can be added, and can contribute to , I am going to boldy include it in the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in  with note '''"significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.''' This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in  shows, as we can extract eight important and distinct pieces of information about the subject to contribute in building our article from appropriate sourcing, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage towards . Much love to all and hope this is helpful in your assessment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Not |notable. On sources mentioned above. She is not as claimed the main topic of discussion of the billboard article, her mother is. The Telegraph piece is very weak, Annie's daughter did not go somewhere, woopdy doo. Teen Vouge is the girls taking about themselves. Italian vogue, another interview. Cosmo, very short piece.  Express, very short piece. Sourcing is very poor and falls into tabloid. This page is puff cobbled together from mion mentions, puff, primary and non mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: per nom and many above, particularly Duffbeerforme. Per , a redirect to Annie's article might be appropriate, and I would encourage anyone whose position was "weak keep" to consider that alternative. We don't need more weak article's on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)