Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith McIver

Meredith McIver

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

Reason GoldenSHK (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Seems like this lady is an unknown ghost writer (by definition they're not supposed to be known anyway) and she happens to be trending right now due to Melania Trump's "speechgate" controversy. What are the chances she'll do anything notable again after this week or if this trending issue really is of longstanding importance?[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I realize there is a possible BLP1E theory at the moment; this seems likely to be gone before the end of the AfD period.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. It can always be turned back into an article later. For now, there are serious risks of this just being a coatrack of criticism. I always tend to think that people read BLP1E too strictly, since the third criterion disqualifies a lot of BLPs that might otherwise meet the criteria. However, while the third criterion may be met in the current news cycle, it's unclear if it will remain so in the future. My guess is it actually will remain notable, and as the event and McIver's role are both covered more, that third criterion will ultimately be met. But for now, I think we ought to err on the side of caution. There's a much greater risk for harm in keeping this article than in provisionally redirecting it. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. Completely agree with the above. I just didn't know that was the exact rule that I needed to reference. Thanks PinkAmpersand. 100% same thought. Should be redirected to the Melania Trump Speech Contreversy which funny enough even has a "Main article" tag on McIver's article. GoldenSHK (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]