Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Meeker


 * 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. Clear consensus on the author; less clear on the book. So, no prejudice on possible merge or redirect of the book page to the author. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Meg Meeker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no notability here by our standards, and recent attempts at sourcing were, well, insufficient (see history and User talk:MPSchneiderLC). The article is essentially just a resume. And while we're on the topic, as goes this, so goes Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, which is just as spammy. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Meeker is not the most notable person on the planet, but being interviewed by multiple independent national news outlets as a topical expert, being endorsed publicly by a major party candidate for president in a US election, having over 600,000 followers on your verified social media, being published by a major publisher like Penguin Random House are each possible signs of notability. I could agree that if only one of those was met, you may have a challenge in arguing for notability, but when combined, she is clearly notable when compared to others whose biographies are on Wikipedia. (I think she has over a million books as another pointer to notability, but it is hard to track down a reliable number in a published source, so I have not added that.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing, NOTHING counts unless it's verified by reliable secondary sources. What you are describing here ("she must be notable cause she has Facebook followers, she must be notable cause Trump retweeted her, she must be notable cause Random House published her"), that's original research or, to put it differently, your opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being interviewed by multiple national television programs that are editorially independent (THe TOday SHow and Multiple Fox News Shows) as a topical expert is notable. She is far more notable than many biographies that are kept on Wikipedia.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep We have outside publications taking note of her work, that is enough to show it is impactful and noticed by some. I know some here do not agree with her views and dislike what she says, but that is not reason for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meeker is noted by multiple editorially-independent national publications or television programs: many of these are interviews as a topic expert, which shows she is considered by many an expert on the topic. A criticism section can be added to make it sound less like a resume, although most criticism I know of has her is more criticism at positions she takes more generally like criticism of abstinence education. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Keep due to citable impact available from reliable sources, in discussions on the themes of her views and publications and improve the article. Edits have been made on the current version include adding reliable source citations and also suggest delete the second paragraph (placed in parenthesis) but not done so due to the deletion discussion ongoing. I am a new user, and apologise if this is incorrect, but did not wish to blank it. Kaybeesquared (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above reasons. SunDawn (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * weak keep while she clearly fails WP:NPROF from an academic point of view, it seems she may just pass WP:GNG with appearances / interviews in national television and newspapers. I am more worried about WP:RS since there is almost nothing notable we can write about her life from RS which makes this a weak keep. Also the article needs cleanup, her facebook likes and who retweets her tweets are clearly not important, even if it is Donald Trump. --hroest 16:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, TJMSmith, I requested the undeletion as she is known as a popular expert on the topic who had been interview on multiple independent major media outlets, and I think has sold a few million book copies (but not stated as WP:RS don't publish that data in a clear way I could find). She is more of a populizer or pop psychologist than someone notable strictly for WP:NPROF. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is consensus that WP:GNG is met as of right now, there should be more discussion about WP:RS and WP:V.
 * Keep -- I do not know her work or how substantial her books are, but if they are more than mere pamphlets, her output of 9 books should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Enough news sources. Peter303x (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it looks like everyone missed that Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters is also part of the nomination as there are no discussion about it, though understandably so since the nomination is a less-than-obvious WP:MULTIAFD. Fixing that now...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 04:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. My search on Google and Newspapers.com turns up several reviews of Meeker's books.      This, in combination with all the other factors discussed above, provides a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did not come across reviews of Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters outside of blogs, so it should probably be deleted or redirected to Meeker's article. Probably not a good idea to bundle it with this AfD though. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep bio; merge book. I doubt we need both, but Bolingbroke has found enough references for us to keep one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple books non-self-published, multiple independent sources covering her.  Additionally, the article cites Meeker as a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, with a link to a reliable book source exerpt that appears to confirm this.  This alone would probably make her notable on its own (it would also make the proper notation Meg Meeker, MD, FAAP).  From what little I've read, I wouldn't personally rely on her for advice, and I have some concerns abut whether her views are contradicted by most major medical specialty and subspecialty societies, but my personal disagreements with her do not affect notability. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets author notability (I won't vote on the book yet, as I haven't done a thorough search for reviews). Two more reviews, if anyone wants to add them, from Kirkus: here and here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While there are reliable sources covering her, WP:NACADEMIC can be applied as it says "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements.". Chiro725 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (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.