Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Coyne
Nominator asserts an article was started on Sarah Coyne ''"because they are related to some powerful/famous Canadian political figures."''  May I remind nominator that  says when topics ''"received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"''.  I suggest that the ongoing coverage of Coyne means she does measure up to the GNG criteria.  GNG doesn't say an individual has to have done something notable to merit coverage in a stand-alone article, merely that they ''"received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."''Nominator asserts ''"Most of the other sources cited in the article aren't about Sarah at all (they're about her mother, or one of the Trudeaus) and only mention her in passing."''  '''(1)''' Shouldn't compliance with  oblige nominator to do their own web searches, not rely solely on references currently in the article -- particularly when the article is only hours old? '''(2)''' Some of the references do only cover her in passing.  Notability is not binary.  Almost none of the subjects of our BLP articles became notable for a single factor, like winning the Victoria Cross.  The notability of almost all of our BLP articles is calculated by adding up separate notability factors, which wouldn't make the individual notable, in and of themselves, but do make them notable when all added together. When multiple articles cover Coyne in passing, but each focus on a different aspect of her life, passing mentions can start to add up to ''"significant coverage"''.  Do I need to list the factors that add up to notability for Coyne
— User:Geo, 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Notability)