Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Coryton
per ,  and . We need to keep history in perspective here. Every single source I see discusses the tax and the petition, with brief mentions about the subject. In some of them, it simply quotes the subject. I don't see why this needs a separate article. We create separate articles only when the coverage increases to such an amount that creating a separate article is absolutely necessary. Over here the petition has received coverage and if there should be a standalone article at all, it should be about the petition. In addition, using sources like http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/96d9abef-b668-42b7-a3bd-6305c42b5ff9 Five women who aren’t on Wikipedia but should be is seriously absurd. I mean this is like using the https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Z2szDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover Dictionary of non-notable Artists to support a claim of someone being notable. Other sources such as http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/new-radicals-2016/laura-coryton Nesta are essentially profiles on a private organisation's website? The petition might be notable but the subject isn't independently notable
— User:Lemongirl942, 11:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NOPAGE||WP:BIO1E||WP:NOTINHERITED (Wikipedia:Notability)