Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks (convict)

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. The rationale provided by both sides of the debate are more or less well-balanced. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Meeks (convict)[edit]

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

Creating Articles for Deletion discussion to discuss the merits of this article amongst the broader Wikipedia community, as more recent publications have arisen, stub article with questionable indication of notability. A previous discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a prime example of WP:1E. Has he done anything particularly notable before or after his 15 minutes of fame?PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt.: This has been deleted after AfD, Speedy deleted under a different title (Jeremy Meeks (model), recreated under a third title. Enough already. Since Jax was the original author of the one deleted via AfD, I think it's a conflict for him to remove the CSD template. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I removed the speedy deletion tag from Jeremy Meeks (convict), not Jeremy Meeks. Let's open the discussion to the Wikipedia community as a whole, and allow the AFD process to work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an original author of the deleted article, you probably should have let somoene else remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive national and international coverage. Per succesful modelling career. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Seems the press can't get enough of this guy. In addition to his initial 15 minutes and his modeling career, his impending divorce has been covered by People, Cosmo (and I don't mean Kramer), a variety of newspapers, etc. ad nauseum. GNG is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm not fond of this, but the subject gets ongoing RS interest due to his successful modelling career. The article needs to fleshed out and moved to a more NPOV title like "Jeremy Meeks" or "Jeremy Meeks (model)". • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - @Gene93k:, if the article does get kept, I could not agree more with a move to "Jeremy Meeks", as he is likely the most notable person with this name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable for a Wikipedia entry, full disclosure, I created this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you created it....or actually recreated it after 2 previous deletions. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage of his crime and conviction were judged insufficient for notability in the previous AfD, so the question has to be whether he has become notable since then. My assessment is that he hasn't. There are several sources, yes, but no in-depth coverage, and it is all pretty much on the level of a gossip column. I do not believe that there is significant coverage, and his WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career is also not grounds for a claim to notability - having a job doesn't make anybody notable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Going with much of what Bonadea said, there are some sources but not the needed in-depth to make this a notable figure. He hasn't done anything particularly notable after the mug shot...umm thing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though this guy has some press, he obviously hasn't done anything notable and also is mainly famous for 1 event, being arrested + being attractive (pretty low bar in and of itself). This not only goes against Wikipedia notable guidelines but it breaks the guidelines for people only notable for one event. This is a clear case of detete. If he actually does something other than existing at this point and the media covers it, I would more than likely vote to remake his article at that point. GoldenSHK (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been sustained coverage nationally and internationally of the article's subject and therefore it clearly passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename — for sustained coverage. Rename, because he now has a modeling career. -Mardus /talk 19:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, rename simply to Jeremy Meeks. -Mardus /talk 21:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But by that standard, we would also need an article about Meechy Monroe, which would be awesome. Monroe passed away within just a few days back.[1] -Mardus /talk 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ongoing coverage and notoriety. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I read through the discussion three times now and while it seems to tilt towards keep, there is no clear consensus yet, so I'm relisting it despite the amount of comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable person. I have not changed my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no more notable than the Trump orb which is still here. If kept, should be moved to Jeremy Meeks: the other person with the same name does not have an article. Or at least Jeremy Meeks (model); no need to have a 'convict' in the article name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your keep reason is that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (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.