Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Kinnard


 * 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. Purely on the numbers this would be "no consensus", but when we look at the strength of the arguments it's clear this is a "delete". The keep !votes make arguments that can be characterised as either WP:OTHERSTUFF, or an argument to notability based on Kinnard's professional output and its presence in various sources, rather than on coverage of Kinnard herself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Meg Kinnard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journalist lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. References are mostly examples of her work product. Vanity page bordering on advertisement. red dogsix (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a notable journalist. A simple Google of her name turns up countless national articles in every major newspaper outlet in The United States. Additionally, I have also found her work cited in United States Supreme Court rulings and over 50 published books. The entry was flowery in its language. I removed many parts that lended credibility to concerns over vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestTennHistory (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - most working press members will find their stuff re-used. That does not make the reporter notable. We are not seeing much in the way of the requisite substantial coverage of Kinnard herself. Her family's charitable work, her famous granddaddy and her husband's press releases do not count. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Continued search of Kinnard turns up more examples of outside sources lending credibility to article. Vote prior to mine uses vague, unsourced language to support claims that "most working press members will find their stuff reused," or any evidence of press releases sent by her family as the originating source for information written about her. Articles produced by UT Martin include bylines of UTM writers and don't indicate that the work was contributed by an outside source. This isn't the strongest article, but it has improved substantially since its first writing. Print journalists often get much less credit than those on TV, but are no less "journalist" than their counterparts. In many cases, such as in this one, they leave a much larger impact. Google her name and choose "news" or "books." Diverse inclusion of her articles in major national publications, using her byline, indicate that she is more exceptional than "most working press members." Kinnard has a verified Twitter account with nearly 20k followers. A deep dive into that shows that she was often retweeted by major candidates such as Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Cruz and Bush in 2016. Shining a light on print journalism is something that can only benefit sites like Wikipedia. WestTennHistory (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unfortunately Wikipedia based notability is not a function of work output or reuse of that content, but rather a function of in-depth, non-trivial, substantial support of the article's subject. Popularity, such as the number Twitter followers, has no bearing on notability.  red dogsix (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability of journalists lists: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." In the social media age, being retweeted and quote-tweeted by peers and major figures certainly falls into this category. This will likely not be the first debate regarding this as we move into the new era (or error) of social media dominance. WestTennHistory (talk)WestTennHistory
 * Comment - It is debatable whether 140 character snippets are substantial enough to be considered a representation of one's works; however, if we were talking about her articles I would certainly understand. red dogsix</i> (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Mild Keep - Just as legit as other journalists already in Wikipedia. Wikirikki79 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Wikirikki79 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Unfortunately, you have not provided support for your statement. The evidence shows otherwise. red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Her articles appear in various notable publications, but she hasn't distinguished herself sufficiently to merit an article or awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Sufficient amount of publication to met GNG.  Article is promotional in tone, but let's not confuse quality of article with notability of person.   Montanabw (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, publication is actually not a component of GNG, but coverage of that publication would be. Which this journalist does not have. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any sources that are about her (as opposed to written by her) that are more than passing mentions. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think WP:JOURNALIST needs to be clarified. Ignoring that standard, is the only independent coverage that's about her rather than a link to her reporting or about her family, and it's not really about her journalism career. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.