Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley (4th nomination)
with SALT. The sourcing here is not an improvement over the prior attempts. There are only three references here that count as |reliable sources at all, and one of them (''Scarborough Mirror'') is a neighbourhood pennysaver rather than a major market daily, while the two that are dailies (''St. Catharines Standard'' and ''Waterloo Record'') are midsize-market papers — so those two are a ''start'' toward getting her over , but not a ''finish'' all by themselves if nothing they verify about her actually constitutes an article-clinching notability claim. Rosguill is right that the ''core'' issue with |user-generated sources like ''Digital Journal'' is the verifiability problem — but COI isn't entirely irrelevant, because one of the problems is that such platforms can be (and sometimes are) used in an attempt to game our inclusion rules by creating and distributing self-created fake sources to "support" Wikipedia articles. That fact doesn't mean, however, that the permissibility of a USERG source is made ''conditional'' on whether the writer can be proven or disproven as a COI editor making fake sourcing for themselves — USERG sources are simply ''prohibited'' from ''ever'' being used as support for notability ''at all'', for the reasons Rosguill pointed out. This is simply not referenced well enough to get her past , and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to ''exempt'' her from having to get past GNG on much stronger sources than this
— User:Bearcat, 23:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:USERG||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)