Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family


 * 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. Discussion regarding a potential page move to rename the article can continue on its talk page. North America1000 04:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Meitiv family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With a reference to the Washington Post my first thought was that this family may meet notability guidelines. But what is notable is not the family but the lifestyle that they have chosen - and we have an article on that at Slow parenting. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. I'm sorry if this sounds snotty, but did you consider running some searches before creating this AfD? A Google News search for "meitiv" comes up with literally hundreds of news articles specifically about the Meitivs. These incidents been covered by all the major media outlets. NY Times, HuffPo, CNN, Fox News, WaPo, Free Press, Star Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Slate, USA Today, Daily Mail, Newsday, ABC, NY Daily News, NY Post, ChiTri, CBS, Guardian, LA Times... The list goes on and on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I accept that on first look they do appear to be notable because of that coverage. But as I considered this further I concluded the they have merely been caught up in a debate about parenting, and it is that which is notable. Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines include:
 * WP:BLP - this is a controversial subject and these people appear to have been unwittingly caught up in it. There are minors involved. Even if the article is balanced and neutral there are questions about whether a family that has been caught up in events apparently not of their making should be permanently associated with them.
 * WP:BIO1E (this is about a single topic) and WP:PERP (these are not criminals but the police involvement means it is relevant) - both of these suggest we have article on the circumstance, not those involved
 * WP:NOTWHOSWHO - this was already a notable subject; these people have not made it so and are just the latest to be involved
 * RichardOSmith (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those policies are inapplicable and your comments reflect that you still haven't taken WP:BEFORE to heart. Please read the sources before you opine on them. Most of these sources aren't about free range parenting, they're about the Meitivs and their run-ins with the police and CPS. Most of the reactions described in these sources aren't on the merits of free range parenting, they're about whether the government handled things appropriately and whether the Meitivs should have kept going after the first incident. Your statement that the family got "unwittingly" caught up in event "apparently not of their making" is flat-out wrong. The Meitivs played an active role in these incidents and have been more than happy to share their story with the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I clearly explained the process I followed WP:before nominating; please WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I believe those policies are fundamental to Wikipedia, relevant, and cannot simply be dismissed. This article is merely news, relevant only in the context of the parenting issue. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The April and May earthquakes in Nepal are merely news too, relevant only the context of Nepal and earthquakes. How is this any different? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect/merge I agree with nom - their name appears often but it is all re-reporting of two single (and minor) incidents. They're the current meme, but there isn't much depth. Since their name has become synonymous with Slow parenting it would be worth adding these incidents to that page (which oddly doesn't mention the recent news). Should they gain more notability in the future (e.g. they write a best-selling book that gets in depth reviews) a page could be created for them, probably under the names of the parents. LaMona (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to how either of you could can completely blow by the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:BIO) without any meaningful analysis. WP:1E doesn't apply because that guideline is about events, not about movements or philosophies. The argument for merging is akin to saying Claude Monet should be merged into Impressionism because, to use your words, Monet's name has become has become "synonymous" with Impressionism. That's just not how WP:N works. Besides, much of the coverage on the Meitivs would have no place in Slow parenting. The story is as much about government conduct and the peculiarities of these incidents as it is about parenting philosophies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's take it from a different angle. The Meitivs are preparing a lawsuit. Would the lawsuit really belong in Slow parenting? At what point would this story deserve its own article? Are you really suggesting never, since it relates to slow parenting? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, I don't know how you get from a single !vote to never, but I don't think that's a useful approach. As a librarian, I think in terms of "where would people look?" and "what is the focus here?" In my mind, in this case the focus is the slow parenting movement. This is an application of WP:PAGEDECIDE, and of course is my reading of the policy in this context. As I said in my comment (which I'll assume you read thoroughly), the Meitiv's may become notable in the future, although it isn't clear if that would be the family or, in particular, the parents. YMMV, and that's fine, but I don't appreciate your conclusion that my reasoning "blows by the relevant guidelines," which does not sound like WP:Assume_good_faith. You seem to be accusing me of negligence, and I assure you that I think through these issues before commenting here. In terms of their being involved in a lawsuit, first one needs to see if the lawsuit itself rises to Notability_(law). So for that we are definitely WP:TOOSOON. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you were acting in bad faith. I'm just really, really surprised you'd think that all of the heavily reported details and angles of the Meitiv story would fit into an article about parenting philosophies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The New York Times says that "The case has drawn international media coverage..." and so its notability seems clear. Deciding how and where to cover the matter is not a matter for AFD.  I don't like the term slow parenting which seems quite obscure but free-range parenting could use expansion and so we might merge into that to preserve the material.  And I must say that the whole thing seems quite remarkable - what has happened to the "land of the free and the home of the brave?"  I walked to school by myself from an early age, used to go off to the park for hours with schoolfriends, take the bus to the library, &c.  Are children up to the age of 10 really expected to be under 24-hour surveillance now? Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, it turns out that in Illinois, kids have to be 14 years old to be left alone! We have had Wikipedia admins younger than that! Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG. The coverage is not about THEM; it is about their parenting approach (already covered in its own article) that has led to "two encounters with government authorities." The typical article ( states that the situation with the Meitivs has raised a national debate about this kind of parenting. That's a big clue they themselves are not the subject of the articles. Article claims they are known for controversy; being controversial, scandalous, notorious, etc is not sufficient for GNG and for BLP is WP:UNDUE. If there were any charges filed and legal action taken, something that might indicate any kind of notability, it could presumably be an article titled "The Meitiv family case." As it is, the incidents are perfectly suitable for the slow parenting article.  —Мандичка YO 😜 02:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Total misapplication of GNG. You are cherrypicking a single source. The test isn't whether a "typical" source that refers to the subject is "about" the subject or "about" something else. The test is whether any sources provide significant coverage of the subject. We have 100s of reliable sources specifically centered on the Meitivs; if even 2 of them provide significant coverage of the Meitivs, then they pass GNG. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is the coverage is all surrounding the case (in the larger context of the parenting style, which is why it's preferable it be in that article.) As the NYT article you quoted states, "The case has drawn international media coverage..." It's the case that has drawn the attention, not them. How is this article a sufficient biography of an entire family? The entire article is about the two incidents in the past six months and only that, which is wholly unacceptable as a WP:BLP. WP:BIO discusses this. "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." —Мандичка YO 😜 05:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that argument. What if we renamed the article "Meitiv incidents" or the like? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support the renaming. IMO it's short enough just to be in the article in the parenting style article, but I think this is a good compromise. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, would consider this a viable compromise, although I still think that the information is thin. I also think that we're temporarily too close to the incident, and that a look back in the future may clarify the notability. LaMona (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * {|cellpadding=0 style="border: 1px solid #A3A3A3; background-color: #FFFFFF" align=left width=auto


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 09:14, 22 May 2015 (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.