Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna McCarthy

Jenna McCarthy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that substack isn't a reliable source, so this has been removed. No comment on the notability of McCarthy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Jenna has a large national following from her books and TED talks, and a wonderful daily satire page on Substack. 2600:1700:79B0:F740:64D5:6B98:4232:4CDB (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:

My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:

"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.

I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.

I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure this wasn't nominated for deletion because I pointed out that it was libelous to call someone a "conspiracy theorist"? I see you changed THAT. Hmmmmm. 2600:1700:60:1170:896B:C934:647B:6353 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I see a few articles on Google news here and there. Also, herein is a brief description of her TED talk on their website. This is not an endorsement of her views on anything. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed MikeJMyhre (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [1] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Oaktree b, and Anonrfjwhuikdzz. This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO on multiple reliable sources, and reviews do not appear to support WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.

Lola Knows A Lot. Kirkus Reviews, 6/1/2016, Vol. 84, Issue 11, page 129
Lola Knows a Lot. Publishers Weekly, 3/28/2016, Vol. 263, Issue 13, page 89
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, July-August 2014, Vol. 67, Issue 11, pages 585-586
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. Library Media Connection, January-February 2015, Vol. 33, Issue 4, page 58
War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic. co-author with Pierre Kory, June 2023 – Top 10 National Bestseller (data from independent and chain bookstores, book wholesalers and independent distributors nationwide - Publishers Weekly) ProQuest 2826943152 – Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and AFAICT neither of the Kirkus reviews are part of the paid Kirkus indie programme [2] [3] Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip [4], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [5], [6], [7]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Updating my vote based on sources that others have found. Given her writing on ivermectin, I do think it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of McCarthy promoting use of ivermectin for COVID despite the lack of quality evidence. Whether or not that includes the specific label of conspiracy theorist will depend on secondary sources about her.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nomination. Upon some research, her first PRIMARY source is literally a medium article written by her with the intent of amending her own wikipedia page.

Writing an article about yourself on medium with the intent of using it as a citable source absolutely fails WP:GNG - it is clear she is non-notable else why would she go through the lengths to do this?

The only other sources are a dead link, her TED talk (which can be paid promotion), and her own website.

Non-Notable. Arguably should qualify for speedy deletion. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the author herself in the book reviews that @RebeccaGreen cited or that @Isaidnoway researched. Writing nonsense about Covid is not a reason for deletion, but it's also not a reason for inclusion, either. Maybe someone will publish an article about her as an author/contributor at some point, but it's WP:TOOSOON to keep this now. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]