Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Kaplan Mulholland (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ann Kaplan Mulholland
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP, written and sourced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content but still not sourced properly. This is following the "get the number of footnotes up as high as possible and hope nobody pays attention to the quality of them" approach to referencing (a thing we call notability bombing, and do not take kindly to) — of the 64 footnotes here, about 70 per cent of them are non-notability assisting primary sources and blogs and press releases and Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject. Of the roughly 30 per cent that do actually represent media coverage, further, even a significant number of those are kneecapped by being internal corporate cross-promotion within the Corus Entertainment family rather than independent coverage, and still others just feature her giving soundbite in a story about something other than her, or being "covered" in the context of her wedding dress or her parenting tips for how to keep your kids from being spoiled brats. The number of sources here that actually represent indepentent WP:GNG-assisting reliable source coverage about her doing anything remotely relevant to a Wikipedia notability criterion is literally in the single digits, which is not enough coverage to excuse how bad the rest of the sourcing is. And furthermore, this is a direct conflict of interest, as the article was created by a WP:SPA editor whose username corresponds to an employee of the public relations department of the article subject's company. As always, neither owning a company nor being a reality TV personality is an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced much, much better than this — and even if she can be properly sourced as notable, we are not a free publicity platform on which she's entitled to make her staff write an article about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto as a plausible redirect, but not much more; all of her other 'shows' on television flag as paid programming, suggesting a host for hire.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mrschimpf. --John (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per, meets the requirements laid out on WP:GNG.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello is a gossip tabloid, not a reliable source, and both of the other two pieces you provided there are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself rather than being objectively discussed in the third person (and one of those, further, is interviewing her in the context of her taste in interior design, not in the context of anything remotely relevant to whether she would qualify for an encyclopedia article or not.) Which means that exactly zero of those three links assist "the requirements laid out on GNG" at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hello doesn't make things up, as far as I can tell, unlike some supermarket tabloids. I think it has enough independence from the people it writes about to be considered, in general, a reliable source. The text in the first part of the Hello article before the Q-and-A transcript can be used to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Our reliable sourcing rules explicitly prohibit that kind of tabloid publication from being a reliable or notability assisting source, period — they don't differentiate between "tabloids that make stuff up" vs. "tabloids that don't make stuff up". There are people who believe what they see in Weekly World News, for instance (fake news is not actually a new thing!) — so even that distinction would lead to constant editwarring over which class of tabloid any given gossip sheet belonged to. The entire class of publication is simply deprecated as not notability-assisting or reliable at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure but would you like to link the discussions where all these sources were rejected as unreliable? I don't see them as biased. They seem pretty sensible for fulfilling the standards of WP:RS.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Many good articles started out quote weak. This article has had the attention of many editors other than its creator, and now seems reasonably neutral. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Not independently notable; promotionalism only. Sources are passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent on the show. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I see enough about her role at iFinance Canada that I slightly prefer to keep over a redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. There's a carpet-bomb of references.  I looked in detail at the references in the lede, on the assumption that they're the best.  None of them convinced me this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto where this individual's limited notability lies. Thre is just not enough INDEPTH to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.