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 no consensus. Looks like we aren't going to agree on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Stephanie Grisham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I propose simply deleting this article. As you can see, someone placed a notability tag there. She doesn’t have enough reliable sources to establish and verify her own notability. Her current job is her “notability” of this article but where are the verifiable facts about her as a person? And most of the sources listed here are not reliable, such as Heavy.com, or sources only mention her once / in passing. Even the WhiteHouse.gov link is broken. If the page isn’t chosen for deletion I recommend redirecting it to Office of the First Lady of the United States as an alternative. Trillfendi ( talk) 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The role she holds is not one that confers an automatic inclusion freebie on every person who holds it, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get her over the WP:GNG bar — it's referenced mostly to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other people, and even the few sources that are actually about her aren't all that substantive (or necessarily even reliable). Bearcat ( talk) 07:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are articles about her in Business Insider, the Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, and in French in ParisMatch, VanityFair, Madame Le Figaro. She clearly meets WP:GNG. The article definitely needs improvement, as is not encyclopaedic in tone. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 15:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

No she doesn’t. The Business Insider article is about a passive aggressive Twitter war with an Ellen Show producer and Kathy Griffin and the headline even only refers to her as “Melania Trump’s spokesperson”. Washington Post article headline refers to her as “First Lady’s spokeswoman” and Grisham did not even respond to request for comment, as spokeswoman for herself! CNN article is about Melania. Newsweek refers to her as “Melania Trump’s spokeswoman” in headline and article is in the same vein as WaPo. To be honest, the CNN article is the one that made me notice this pattern and propose deletion. All of these articles are about Melania Trump rather than herself. No source verifies details in this article or even goes into detail about herself and I have yet to come across one. Vanity Fair France makes reference to her in relation to Melania, yet don’t even take the time to bold her name like they do every other person, and don’t mention her as a standalone figure. Even the reclusive, nonverbal hermit Hope Hicks has detailed articles about her and she was also a Trump spokeswoman. Grisham does not have her own notability; when this administration ends or if she resigns, what can be said of her as her own person? Nothing. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- Sources in article already establish notability. There are all the newspaper sources on her appointment and the separate Newsweek article on her putative violation of the Hatch Act. Nom's complaints about broken links are not a reason to delete an article. Nom's complaints about lack of verifiable facts are refuted by the verifiable facts in the article. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

192.160.216.52 ( talk) I didn’t say the broken White House link was the reason for deletion, I simply said it’s broken. Until she can get a stand alone article where they don’t even have to mention Melania’s name in the headline every single time, I stand by my initial assessment that all of these articles are predominantly about the Trumps and only mention her in passing. Even that Fox 10 Phoenix referred to her as “single mother” in their headline instead of her own name—for an article that’s supposed to be about her (just rude). “Grisham was the proprietor of Sound Bite Public Relations, LLC of Gilbert, Arizona.” yet it just shows her phone number and a map. A business that’s supposed to be hers gives no actual details? Trillfendi ( talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per others. I don't think sources like "Local mom gets a job in the White House" should be used to establish notability. The rest are not enough. Morgan Ginsberg ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Trillfendi's source analysis in their response to RebeccaGreen's keep. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - between the Arizona media coverage of her appointment, which is about her and not Melania, and the Newsweek coverage of the Hatch Act violation, I think she just barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Even if we were scraping the bottom of the barrel here, she doesn’t meet “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Trillfendi ( talk) 00:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete most of the sources here aren't on her, and the ones that are directly cover her appear trivial (hiring, "local gal makes good") per my review and the comments of others above, especially Trillfendi. SportingFlyer talk 13:32, 20 November 2018 (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.