Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola Lennox
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
— User:Soulman1125, 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:PSTS||WP:PSTS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)