Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith McIver

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. Opinions are split between either keep or merge/redirect. While several opinions are quite weak, there are valid arguments on both sides, and whether somebody transcends BLP1E is a matter of editorial judgment. The article therefore stays by default ... for now. Sandstein 16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Update: eight days later, I think I could support redirect to an article just on the speech controversy, but unfortunately that's been merged for the time being and is getting short shrift. I think the speech controversy is something people will want to look up in future years.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Agreed, but I don't think editors will see value in the article unless/until it is fully expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 28 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]
Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy (assuming that article doesn't also get deleted) sounds like a good idea to me. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, but a BLP1E case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. The most significant coverage I could find about her prior to the current event was this: [1]. While somewhat entertaining, it is not significant coverage about her, and her role in the current event is both WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT at this time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. A reliable source [2] has now connected her to two independent incidences, separated by a number of years, where she has been identified by the Trump Organization as the author of damaging mistakes. In combination with some preexisting coverage regarding her ghostwriting role on Trump's books this bio now satisfies WP:GNG and no longer fails WP:BLP1E in my estimation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as a low-profile one-event BLP. Gee, this one is fast even for Wikipedia. Can we confirm that this staffer is real yet? • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think full deletion should be an option. McIver's name appears on my television screen as I write this sentence. People are and will be turning to Wikipedia for information. If people are searching for her by name, they should be directed to something. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete99.244.94.62 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:BLP1E, specifically #2. Likely to remain low-profile. AugustusVarius (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - especially since her existence is not proven. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources questioning her existence? This and this might help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who Is Melania Trump’s Speech Writer Meredith McIver?, Time
Who is Meredith McIver, the person behind Melania Trump's controversial RNC speech?
Who Is Meredith McIver? Read The Trump Speechwriter's Statement On The Melania "Plagiarism" Debacle

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Seems like we should give this article some time to develop, especially since outlets are creating profiles about her as we speak. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The linked article above are about the plagiarism, not the individual, and other sources I've seen do not corroborate notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy--or, better yet, to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech--per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E --Shadow (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E - not enough info about this person to do a credible biography —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she exists as claimed - Trump's staff speechwriter and ghostwriter of several of his books - then surely she's notable enough, regardless of the plagiarism controversy. If she's in any way fictitious then the story of how that happened is also notable. Eric Blatant (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eric Blatant. If she authored or co-authored the four books as stated, then this isn't a BLP1E. Brianga (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. As a ghostwriter she is notable. There is likely to come a number of news articles on her: "I just finished up the first of many interviews to come. Be on the lookout for it soon." [3]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure that's a fake Twitter account. This photo is clearly Photoshopped from this one (the latter is from this press release). Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction! I recalled that photo, actually. I am very confused now. Is Piers Morgan ironic? [4]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other image is of course also photoshopped [5]. — fnielsen (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope this discussion continues for several more days, because new articles are revealing more details about McIver. Take this one fore example. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for better or for worse - her role as to the plagiarism controversy and ghostwriting for the Trump organization makes her notable, if only slightly beating out BLP1E. I would second a redirect/merge with Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy if said article is in-depth. As of now, both articles should remain. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 23:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable co-author of numerous best-selling books, despite rumors to the effect that she doesn't exist,[6] which are all the more reason for us to serve out our encyclopedic purpose here. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ahh! Ghostwriter. This explains why there are so many mistakes in Trump's tweets but not in books written by this ghostwriter in his behalf!--Alcoaariel (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. I believe it falls under WP:Too Soon.~~ Arguments for keeping this article have been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not redirect: Even if Melania Trump had not given a speech at all, McIver would merit notability as having ghostwritten several of Trump's books, given the events of the past year. The facts that a) there was controversy surrounding Melania's speech and b) there was a question raised as to whether McIver actually existed both make the existence of a McIver WP article important. KConWiki (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, notable aside from the Melania Trump speech (and that page no longer exists, was merged to the convention page) which actually is notable enough for this page's inclusion. Randy Kryn 16:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she is admittedly a minor actor in the 2016 election, but has had a long-term significant involvement with Trump and his family. She has consistently been chosen as Trump's coauthor. She is involved in two controversies which have received attention during this election (see contribution from IP 24.151.10.165 above). Sufficient reliable sources are now available to support the article content. --Mirokado (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm still not convinced that she even exists, or perhaps is a nom de plume of some other person, such as a Russian spy. I want to see her birth certificate. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cute, actually, pretty funny. but, User:Bearian, you may want to revisit so that this can be closed. I assume that you're joking, but, on the chance that you are not kidding about the delete, come back and give a serious reason.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm kinda 50/50 on the BLP1E thing but notability is certainly there and given a chance overtime the article will improve, If it doesn't renominate it and we'll all scream BLP1E like banshees . –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not strictly BLP1E because of the coverage of her as a Trump assistant and ghostwriter, credited as co-author of his 2005 book, and writtnen up as such in The NYTimes, the Guardian and other papers back in 2005/ 2007.(links on page) It's more like an actress who has a speaking role in a blockbuster movie, once, then, 10 years later, has a speaking role in a second blockbuster movie. In that role she plays maybe the private secretary, but in that role she has this one famous line. So we keep her. Becase people years form know will stumble on that moment and want to know who she is. Also WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.