| 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 sourced must 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deletion
editI don't know the process to delete an article, but Tendler does not seem to me to meet the standards of notability. From what I can see she is only notable for being the wife of John Malaney. 85.149.13.48 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Was thinking the same thing. Who is this? 2601:400:C180:96D0:7DDD:CF07:1890:F69A (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
RS
editDavid Gerard, your constant removal of content [1], [2], [3], [4] without further research to find an RS or consideration of said content based solely on what is considered RS at WP is what many consider to be unproductive, across-the-board style editing. An album track is not contentious content being introduced here even for a BLP. Per discussion at Teahouse and BLP Noticeboard, this content is perfectly admissible with its present sources. You are arguing RS for mere RS argument sake. If you want an RS to suit what you feel is RS for this content, then find one (... and please don't use ONUS here, that is just as tiresome as RS deletion). Pinging the original editor TurningAndTurningIn. You and I both know this exists; and that's all the line is stating. That is why WP has "better source needed" and even "citation needed" templates. Similar to the Vanity Fair source that I found and cited and reinstated the original content, do what you need for this simple statement. Maineartists (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fundamentally, if you think Page Six is usable as a source on a BLP, I don't know what to tell you. Claiming that Page Six is an RS for anything suggests you are unaware that it was literally found GUNREL at an RFC, and came close to deprecation - but you're not unaware of that, nor that there have been no carveouts on that. By
please don't use ONUS here
, you're literally saying "don't invoke policy", and I'm sure you can see the issues there. Particularly as I didn't say ONUS, you did - you are admitting you know the policy you're claiming an exemption from for no actual reason. As I said: if you have an RS, great, use that. If you don't have an RS, you don't have something that should be in Wikipedia. If literally all you can find for a on a BLP is Page Six, you really don't have something that should be in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)