Talk:Mary L. Trump

explanation

I reverted these edits. I think Mary L. Trump merits an article. But, for over a decade or more, BLP articles with zero references are eligible for rapid deletion.

Since there should be a real properly referenced article here, I am reverting this back to a redirect. A real properly referenced article might get challenged, at AFD, and the fact that a previous version had been speedy deleted could sway some contributors to a delete opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be a redirect. The only notability is the (as-yet-unpublished) book. A smattering of gossip pieces and churnalism pieces that are in reality discussing the book background does not warrant a permanent encyclopedic article. But some people just can't stop scraping the barrel. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Too Much and Never Enough with Mary L. Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge Mary L. Trump into Too Much and Never Enough. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E: The author is a low-profile individual whose only credible notability is the as-yet-unpublished Too Much and Never Enough. The only relevant third-party coverage in the past 20 years have been trivial coverage relating to family issues, and this book. All relevant background can be summarized in the book's article without dumpster-diving for dregs of verifiable but trivial facts to pad out a separate article. Earning a a PhD and writing a scholarly article does not meet WP:PROF. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support not known for anything of her own merit outside of this book. On another note, when WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E link to the same page, one only needs to mention one or the other. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nablais (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as she was not notable until her book hit the news, a case of BLP1E. BTW the title of this thread is a little ambiguous; I want to make it clear that I am supporting a merge of Mary L. Trump into Too Much and Never Enough, not the other way around - with Mary L. Trump reverting to a redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the two supports, above, assert Mary L. Trump is a BLP1E, ignoring that she also received significant RS coverage twenty years ago, when she contested her grandfather's will, and she is also the source of the tax documents behind the Pullitzer Prize winning reporting on Trump's taxes.

  I think it would be a disservice to readers who read about the disputed will, in the articles on Fred Trump Sr., Donald Trump, or the articles on her Donald Trump's siblings, and want to read about the other parties in the dispute. They click on a wikilink they would reasonably expect to take them to an article on Fred Trump's granddaughter, only to find themselves reading an article about a book on Trump. I think this kind of merge reduces the confidence our readers have in the wikipedia's usefulness and reliability.

  Similarly, readers interested in the background to the Pullitzer don't want to be sent to an article on the book.

  I think it should be noted that BLP1E explicitly says that when someone is known for one event, but their role is central, they may, after all, still merit a standalone article. I suggest that, even if she were known for only her publication of this book, the coverage of her would measure up to our criteria for a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper of record. It is entirely possible to make a single decent, comprehensive article that fairly and proportionally covers the author and their sole work of notability. Wikipedia does not need to be run on reflexive, compulsive recentism just because of viral news cycles. --Animalparty! (talk)

• Animalparty, I think you offer the wrong counter-arguments.

Topics are inter-related - are linked to one another. Individual real-world GNG-compliant topics, that are linked to one another, should have individual standalone articles, that are wiki-linked to one another.

1. As I pointed out, readers solely interested in the 2017 Pullitzer will be interested in Ms Trump, not in a book published in 2020. So, why are you arguing it is a good idea to send them to an article on a book, only peripherally related to the Pullitzer.
2. If the book makes a real-world best-seller list, or receives real world awards for literary value, or political impact, readers reviewing all books that won that award, may have no interest in the author. So, don't send them to an omnibus article that discusses multiple topics, when each of those multiple topics measures up to GNG.

   Reserve covering both the author, and their works, for author/works combos, where one or both don't measure up to GNG, all by themselves.

3. Succumbing to an unnecessary urge to merge erodes the value of the [what links here] buttons. Watchlists, and the [what links here] button, are powerful features - features that work best when we are disciplined enough to keep each article focussed around a single topic. In general, if a GNG-compliant topic is worthy of a wikilink, it is worthy of a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Notability is not inherited and she got her own significant coverage. The book is a bestseller before it’s even released. Inevitably, when it is released, coverage will continue at this rate. Sadly, by Wikipedia standards, she is a notable author. The coverage over the will wouldn’t have been enough. Trillfendi (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Author and book are sufficiently notable independently from one another. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It has just been published and there are already Washington Post and New York Times ' articles about the book not the author.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merger: The book is notable and deserves it's own article to allow expansion. Blockhouse321 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• String oppose, undoubtedly notable book, easily meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: To clarify, I am proposing to merge Mary L. Trump into Too Much and Never Enough, as the book is clearly notable, while the author primarily notable for this alone. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per comments above. It could be argued that she is known only for being Donald Trump's niece and for writing an exposé book on/about him, but that alone, especially the latter, warrants an article on her. There is a clear claim of notability here. AshMusique (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per comments above (again). Brad (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is enough coverage to have notability for book and author. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.