This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Let's say I get a webpage and on it I state, "John form Idegon is actually Abraham Lincoln". Does that mean I am Abraham Lincoln? Of course not! Referncing an article to the subject's website and then removing the notability tag is not at all appropriate. In all actuality this article should probably go to AfD. I really do not see anything anywhere except the books she has written, which in and of themselves, do not make her notable and a couple passing mentions in articles about child rearing. What is needed is an article about her, or one of her books to win an award. John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously sharing Facebook posts as sources is generally not good, but I would figure that the soon-to-be-president sharing your interview is noteworthy. It seems to be a little grey reading the policies about this. I'm not going to fight this as it is not the only noteworthy thing she did. It was mentioned in this interview with a local paper too if that is a better source. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 03:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I should cite the local paper where the interviewer asks her about Trump endorsing her? (Link in above comment.) I'll make that change if that is the better way to indicate this. Here's the removed text from the reference if later this is reversed: "This video is no longer on their website but Donald Trump's Shareis still live." 15:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Trump endorsed her" (whatever "endorse" means--it's not like he reads books, or books on parenting) is not grounds for notability. But he didn't even endorse her: he just shared a video link in a tweet. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that "endorse" is too strong of a word here. But if the question is notability, then having a video of yourself shared by one of the most well known people in the world, does show a degree of notability.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that the second paragraph (placed in parenthesis) is removed and have edited the key points into the article further down. Have not deleted the sentence, due to the article deletion discussion ongoing. I am a new user, and thus apologise if this is incorrect, but did not wish to blank it. Not familiar with American media, so if the wikilinks I have not edited in are very pertinent they could be re-instated in the later section. Kaybeesquared (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the additional sources. I moved one Ref that repeated down below in case this paragraph is deleted. I would vote to put that more towards the end but keep it, but if the votes go for deleting, I won't bring up a strong objection. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 00:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Meeker's book mentioning a rainbow party does not show she is the origin. We need a secondary source to say that. All citing her book shows is that she said it, but nothing about her saying it indicates she is not paraphrasing another source or similar. I added "citation needed," but this may be grounds to remove the sentence until the secondary source is found given this is a WP:BLP. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
