Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Mulvaney

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 keep. Star Mississippi 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Mulvaney[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am not convinced that notability has been met here for a living persons page. Citations seem to all be news reports or blog type websites. I am unsure this represents a significant contribution in relation to the requirements for notability. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Through 2022 (especially after her meeting with Biden in October), Mulvaney has been the subject of media coverage for her social media presence, meeting with Biden, and advertising deal with Ulta Beauty and subsequent online criticism. This has included news coverage from The New York Observer ([1]), NBC News ([2][3]), The Times ([4]). Bridget (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current sourcing in the article clearly establishes notability per WP:GNG by way of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The nom is flawed as it seems this new editor, while operating in good faith, does not seem to be familiar with or understand our guidelines for notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the guidance, I’m questioning notability being proved here. TheMouseMen (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMouseMen Please explain why you feel the coverage in these sources currently supporting the article are dubious or doubtful: The Observer, PinkNews, NBC News, LA Magazine, San Diego Magazine, Elle, Good Morning America, The Daily Beast, The Times (of London), Rolling Stone and others. Your detailed analysis of these sources would be helpful here. Netherzone (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone, I’m not stating they are dubious or doubtful - I’m sure they’re legit articles, I was solely questioning the broader notability. It seems the subject has made some TikTok videos, I accept they seem popular, but does TikTok popularity equate to Wikipedia notability? Does her contribution to her field (is activist the main area of achievement?) meet notability guidance? Agree the sources are valid/legit. TheMouseMen (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMouseMen, a person does not have to fit into a neat vocational box to be notable. She meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. It would be appreciated if you would kindly answer my question above why you don't think that the multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources are enough. Since you continue to question notability being proven, which of course if your right, it would be really helpful to this discussion if you could please do a detailed source analysis of these references. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: news reports are acceptable sources, nominator should perhaps slow down and familiarise themself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. PamD 10:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What’s she Notable for in a sentence?

Then we can see if there’s evidence for that. Tannim101 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - sources include: Trans TikToker shares a side of transitioning that is often left out (GMA, Apr. 15, 2022), TikTok Reveals LGBTQ+ ‘Trailblazers’ List in Celebration of Pride Month (LA Mag, May 31, 2022), Ulta Beauty is defending transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney after critics said they'd boycott the retailer for featuring her on a podcast (Insider, Oct. 17, 2022), ‘I’m Not Going Anywhere’: Dylan Mulvaney Gives a Masterclass in Grace After Caitlyn Jenner’s Transphobic Comments (Rolling Stone, Oct. 31, 2022), Dylan Mulvaney on Transitioning in Front of Millions (San Diego Magazine, Oct. 26, 2022), Dylan Mulvaney’s response to online trolls: 'I'm a real person' (Today, Nov. 1, 2022), TikTok’s Discover List 2022: Meet 50 Creators Who Are Making a Global Impact (Variety, Nov. 15, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has more than enough reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:BIO notability with significant coverage in multiple solid sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article more than sufficiently pass WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient news coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:47, 3 December 2022 (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.