Talk:Annamarie Tendler

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.

Biography

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 articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Connecticut

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deletion[edit]

I 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)[reply]

Was thinking the same thing. Who is this? 2601:400:C180:96D0:7DDD:CF07:1890:F69A (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Annamarie Tendler.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS[edit]

David 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)[reply]

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)[reply]