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 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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
John Mulholland is a notable journalist and former editor of the Guardian, rather than quoting "just anyone". The quote is provided to add some context to the reception of the speech, with two differing viewpoints given by two notable journalists with citations, one giving the opinion that it was a cynical political entrance for Kai Trump and she was now one of the notable political figures in the Trump family, and another saying that she successfully made her grandfather appear human and succeeded as a positive political tool for her grandfather. If you would wish to add another quote and opinion, feel free to do so. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the AfD, I think it is clear that generally editors were leaning keep (and I was one of them). If the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, I would claim that the outcome should be status quo ante bellum, which in this case would be keeping the article in current form. A redirect at this point would not be warranted and I would oppose such a move. Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD 1 is not the same as AfD 2. There was a significant change in the coverage of the subject between AfD 1 and AfD 2. I do not think you can claim that the consensus from AfD 1 applies here. Clearly the spirit in which the "no consensus" verdict was given was to say "the case for deletion or redirection has not been adequately supported". The null hypothesis of a deletion discussion is that the article should stand, and the burden of proof is on the people advocating for deletion in such a discussion. If you disagree with this, I would be happy to take this to WP:RFC? Spiralwidget (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
