Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Remy


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Jared Remy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia entry focuses on an individual who does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia given that it is an individual defendant in a local murder trial with no other notable attributes. Allowing an entry on this individual to exist would amount to allowing a Wikipedia page for every criminal defendant charged with a murder. TerenceAmbrosius (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — TerenceAmbrosius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - per nom. --Malerooster (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Bangor Daily News , RDS , ABC News , CBS News , USA Today , and LA Times for three separate incidents over the course of eight years. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's subject, as the son of a notable baseball broadcaster and player, gets more media attention than might be given to another criminal defendant. Coverage of the steroids story along with the murder charge takes this out of single-event territory. Agree with Hirolovesswords on WP:GNG. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not inherited. The articles are all written about the fact the son of a notable person was charged, not about the subject itself.  Caffeyw (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The murder would have been reported, even if the accused did not have a well-known father. Same for the Red Sox firing two guys who told the media they used steroids; that's enough for a news story. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - Agree with nom. on notability. All articles seem to be about the father and the fact his son is charged, not about the actual son itself.  A mention on the father's page would make more sense.  Caffeyw (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG, user Hirolovesswords are right about his assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge the only reason why we have an article is because of his famous father. Not notable by himself. 98.242.139.162 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - Seriously, what the holy hell is wrong with some people around here, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for keeping this. This is textbook WP:BLP1E, the only reason it is seeing a slight uptick from a routine news story about a murder is due to the alleged perpetrator's famous father.  Notability is not inherited, so take that, the BLP1E, the fact that this person fails the 2 criteria (renowned victim or unusual motivation/method of killing) for perpetrators found at WP:CRIME. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article passes BLP1E because multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event (2005 assault arrest, 2009 firing, and 2013 murder case) and given the high-profile murder charge he is not likely to remain a low-profile individual. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - While he is involved in more than a single "event," a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use and a 2005 assault would similarly not have been considered "newsworthy" had it not been for Remy's famous father. Additionally, this is WP:BLP1E because the individual is likely to remain a low-profile individual as there is a high likelihood that there will be no coverage following a potential trial. Furthermore, the only individual arguing that the article be kept is Hirolovesswords, who authored the original article. In closing, the entry also violates WP:BLPCRIME in that the entire article focuses on an individual accused of a crime without a conviction. Were it not for a criminal accusation, there would be no substance to the article. It should be deleted, and at most be merged as a few lines within his father's Wikipedia entry.Mhoward184 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Mhoward184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What you characterize as "a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use" is more noteworthy because (a) the employer was a major-league baseball team, (b) the fired employees admitted to steroid use, (c) the fired employees had personal contact with team players. PEDs in baseball is a huge story, and this would have been covered even without the connection to Jerry Remy. Firing + murder charge overcomes WP:BLP1E. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails a mixture of NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E WP is not a catalogue for every crime.  LGA talk  edits   20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG. Not a BLP1E as multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, as explained above. Cavarrone 12:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, see Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination) for precedent for these sorts of cases. A string of legal altercations does not make a person notable, when said notability is only derived from a famous relative.  Absent the relationship to Jerry Remy, this person would not be covered to the extent that he has.  Al Gore III is just a redirect for precisely this reason, so at most here, an argument can be made for a small sub-section of Jerry's bio to discuss the son, with a redirect of 'Jared Remy' to that sub-section.
 * That's not how it works "what"? If you are referring to WP:BLP1E this is how it works. About the rest, I have no prejudice against a merging with his father's article, but this could be discussed in the proper venue once the AfD will be closed. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Closing admin, please read through the Al Gore III deletion history linked above, as it should serve as a guide for this case, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A subject which required 8 nominations to be deleted and whose major claim of notability was "He is known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention" could be hardly serve as a guide for this case. Every case is different, and this is quite different, IMHO. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the comments of and the fact that this does not fall under BLP1E due to the fact that there is coverage on multiple events pertaining to this individual (assault (another), steroid use (another), murder). Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (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.