Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallulah Harlech

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Harlech

[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)

No evidence of any notability. Even prior to the recent (own?) hatchet job, the refs were all interviews or perhaps regurgitated press releases. Nothing substantial, independent or reliable. Her apparent relationship to aristocracy doesn't count for anything. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles' source, Fashion Telegraph is a part of The Daily Telegraph, a very reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the notability criteria for people states" multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". One source does not equate multiple sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't saw it at first, but our subject had removed 2 references (and couple sentences) which expanded on her notability. I restored the version which was prior to removal. So, I think she is quite notable (as of now 16 refs).--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 October 2018 (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.