Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Kaplan Mulholland

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Kaplan Mulholland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and résumé-like WP:BLP of a person whose stated claims of notability are being a Real Housewife of Toronto and owning a company. Neither of these is confers an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists, but the sourcing isn't there to support a WP:GNG pass -- this is based on just three sources, of which one is the unreliable kind and one is the primary kind. Which leaves one acceptable source, but that's not enough to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her plastic surgeon husband may not be notable either, but she clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, orphan, full of OR, no legit claim to notability. Written by SPA whose 2nd edit was creating this article...likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, this one clearly fails GNG. And from inclusionist-leaning me, that really should make it a snow delete (lol). Montanabw^(talk) 07:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.