Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Reed

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Reed

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is about a university activist. It seems the only source which discusses the subject in a bit of detail is a university/campus newspaper (which cannot be used for proving notability). The other sources I found are DailyMail (questionable source, 2 line mention), The Independent (references previous source), Breitbart 1 (single line mention), Breitbart 2 (references DailyMail and Breitbart 1). I'm not sure how reliable DailyMail and Breitbart are for proving notability and in any case, the coverage it really less. At the moment, I don't see enough significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to merit a separate article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A google docs file outlining media coverage of Ashley Reed, unfortunately I did not have time to update the article to reflect all of these due to exams and campaigns happening at my university. I attend university with the person who first brought up grounds for a COI, themselves not declaring that they have a COI against the subject of the article.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XDHiKGcK4U8tkJBX0dnSK3-xVf-qOkCWLMnbyDEAK-Y/ JustLucas (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient support for claims of notability. JustLucas' list does not convince me; that he or she seems to be a SPA rings alarm bells along the 'using wikipedia to promote self, partner or colleague' lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast Samat lib (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable university student activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (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.