Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzy Clark

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy Clark

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article only cites two secondary sources and only one is actually about Lizzy Clark (the BBC article). The rest of the cited sources are mostly about Clark's mother and are all primary sources except one (The Observer). Consequently, this article relies too heavily on primary sources; more than half of the eight sources cited are primary (mostly things written by Clark's mother), with only two secondary sources and one dead link. Also, the majority of the Career section is about their mother's activism (and it should be noted that the website for the mother's campaign is no longer active), and the Personal Life section says more about Clark's mother and sister than it does about Lizzy Clark. Baronet13 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails
WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. I'm not against an article having primarily primary sources. The newspaper articles are not all interviews by the subject. There are at least three good sources with material about the person. I add in "weak" due to the lack of secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia notability guidelines require that articles rely primarily on independent sources (
WP:INDEPENDENT), so an article that relies primarily on primary sources fails that requirement. The biggest problem in the case of this article is that most of the sources cited were written by and/or about the subject's mother (who actually seems more notable than the subject) and contains little or no substantive information about the subject. Also, what are the "three good sources" you mentioned? I'm only aware of one short BBC article. Baronet13 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. ‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Careful and thorough search for SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources doesn’t show anything that would satisfy notability guidelines per
WP:NPERSON. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.