Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Parker-Pope


 * 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. A significant amount of coverage has been found in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tara Parker-Pope

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Has written a few self help books and is a columnist, does not meet guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. The user that created this article has a history of not understanding wikipedia's notability guidelines MisterRichValentine (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it certainly sounds unappetising (per nom). But let's see what we can find and then make our minds up:


 * Smoke Bomb by Peter G Gosselin, 11 March 2011 - review of Parker-Pope's book Cigarettes: Anatomy of an Industry from Seed to Smoke (certainly not a self-help book, and not part of her column either). Gosselin writes "a useful guide to the world's most lethal legal industry, and to efforts to reduce the carnage at a time when globalization is extending opportunities for self-destruction through smoke to billions." The review is in the New York Times - impeccable source, but of course Parker-Pope's workplace. I suggest it is allowable as a reliable source here as the NYT and Gosselin cannot risk their reputation for a colleague.


 * There are many NYT blogs and letter also about Parker-Pope but I am unsure about citing them.


 * The Week 29 July 2009. "After watching the latest Harry Potter movie, I have to ask, “Does Hogwarts have a drinking problem?” said Tara Parker-Pope in The New York Times. Unlike in previous Harry Potter movies, alcohol has a “starring role” in “The Half-Blood Prince.”" A reliable source; the article has a jokey feel but a serious message, and Parker-Pope is treated as a source worth quoting.


 * ON LINE opinion, Australia's e-journal of social and political debate 22 July 2008. "According to Tara Parker Pope writing in the New York Times, American pediatricians are recommending wider cholesterol screening for children and more aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, starting as early as the age of eight, in the hope of preventing adult heart problems. This has followed guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics which also calls for children to be given low-fat milk after 12 months of age. The academy estimates that 30 to 60 per cent of children with high cholesterol are being missed under screening guidelines and that statins or cholesterol-lowering drugs, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack."


 * Dissident Voice, a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice by Michael Dawson, 15 January 2009. "As reported by The New York Times’ excellent health columnist Tara Parker-Pope, all use of cellular telephones while operating an automobile — in both “hands-free” and hands-on forms — is as dangerous as drunk driving, research announced today shows. That means many thousands of people in the USA and around the world are being killed each year by the public’s continuing toleration of this ubiquitous practice."


 * Arizona Daily Star 9 December 2005. "...and trigger a brain-chemical release that stimulates a "shopping high ," health writer Tara Parker-Pope said in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal."


 * Los Angeles Times: Health 8 May 2010. "One of the perks of being a journalist is that it can give professional license to explore subjects of personal interest and to knock on doors closed to most people -- all in the course of doing your job. Author Tara Parker-Pope has made the most of that opportunity with her excellent new book, "For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage.""


 * I think that's probably enough to say KEEP - there are plenty more citations about Parker-Pope available from good sources, even if we discount the many by other columnists in the NYTimes itself. WP:AUTHOR asks us to check  "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - Yes, she is, definitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now added a Bibliography section to the article. Update: and inserted these (sample) references into the article, with inline citations. If this still isn't enough, userfy it for me and I'll work on it some more - there are dozens more quotes I could cite. Seems she's very highly regarded by her colleagues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the research legwork by Chiswick Chap. Good going.  The subject is clearly regarded as an expert by independent, third-party sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Parker-Pope overwhelmingly meets WP:AUTHOR (1—per —and 4c—per the following). Her For Better has received coverage and reviews in reputable publications—"For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage" from Newsweek, "Book Review: 'For Better' by Tara Parker-Pope" from Los Angeles Times, "'For Better' Offers Hope, Optimism About Marriage" from The Wall Street Journal, "Scientific look at marriage" and "'For Better' takes scientific look at marriage" from Associated Press, "&#91;Untitled&#93;" from Publisher's Weekly, "A Chemistry Set For 'The Science Of A Good Marriage'" from All Things Considered, "Book review: 'For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage,' by Tara Parker-Pope" from The Washington Post, "MIND Reviews: For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage" from Scientific American, and "Book Review: For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage" from GeekDad (part of Wired). Goodvac (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2011 (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.