Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dewitte


 * 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 keep. The headcount was 7–4 in favour of keeping and with the debate largely consisting of assertions for and against coverage being routine, there isn't anything else to go on. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeremy Dewitte

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of, which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.

Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime,  and Florida.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I initially agreed with your assessment when I looked at this months ago, but there is more than local coverage. In addition to what you mentioned above, there is national coverage. Not to mention he was featured on Dr. Phil.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article creator) I don't understand/agree with the "point and laugh" comment. He's a registered sex offender, who has made English and Spanish language news many times, over many years. I think this provides encyclopaedic value, based on the hundreds of visitors who read the page daily. I think he passes WP:GNG. Obviously he's not likeable, but I think he is notable. I don't think any policies or guidelines, including WP:GNG discount local coverage, so I don't understand that part of the rationale either. I also note the national coverage above. A lot of the currently cited coverage is from WFTV which is media establishment with a 65 year history, I am not very familiar with it, but my assessment was that it was a reliable source. I urge people to search for him before !voting, because from my perspective, he seems not just notable, but very notable. CT55555 (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue with local coverage isn't that it's local; it's that it often tends to very routine stories that don't really indicate the significance of the topic at hand. For instance, any school superintendent will receive a considerable amount of local news coverage, but they usually won't be notable, because that coverage will all be routine, without any in-depth discussion of the superintendent themself. Is there in-depth discussion of Dewitte? Are there sources that say more than "Local man arrested again"? Even the two national sources (both from marginally reliable sources for BLPs, for what it's worth) don't say much more than that. What matters is depth, not volume. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The most recent news on him is this. It's 628 words, all about him. That seems like significant coverage to me. Just to give one example. CT55555 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with User:CT55555 this is WP:GNG. Barely, but the repeat offences have garnered national coverage, and he's been on national media. I added a Daily Beast article to the page to bolster this. This is no superintendent getting periodic press mentions - he's notable for his repeated crimes and has gotten substantive coverage.Oblivy (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Its states on the article "Posted by Osceola County Sheriff's Office". It is an affiliate news and is not indepedent coverage. It is generic and base.   scope_creep Talk  06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading this - there is an embedded video and picture which were posted by the Sheriff's office. The article has a byline, "Matt Young" whose name appears on other articles on the site. Oblivy (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - while there is national coverage, it's not significant. UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is defined as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Can you tell me how the Fox News article or being the main focus of a nationally broadcast talk show would not be considered "significant" under that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not UtherSRG, but: Dr. Phil is not a reliable source (very very far from it), so it doesn't matter whether that coverage is significant. The Fox piece is routine coverage of an arrest. There's not nearly enough there to build a proper biography out of. When you write a BLP based only on arrest/conviction reports, you get something that is not fair under either WP:N nor WP:BLP. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jeremy Dewitte is one of the worlds most famous police impersonators. Simple google search yields thousands of Dewitte focused webpages worldwide.  He's been featured on multiple national programs including Fox, Dr. Phil, A&E Court Cam.  There is a Facebook Group named "JEREMY DEWITTE / METRO STATE FAN CLUB" with 5,000 members and daily in-depth discussion.  The story of Jeremy Dewitte is not a simple here today gone tomorrow character.  While I can see how this may seem insignificant or local, it is my opinion that there is informational value to keeping with a significant international audience. 70.94.118.14 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources. There are YouTubers and other influencers with followings in the tens of millions whom we've ruled non-notable. All you're demonstrating is that the article is, as I said, of the "point-and-laugh" variety. We are here to document encyclopedically relevant information, not herd lolcows. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor is a WP:SPA who has made few other edits to Wikipedia.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Effectively a routine police report rebadged and represented as supposedely a significant and notable individual when there is not a single thing on the article that makes him notable. Registered sex offenders are 10 a penny and its not the job of WP to hold public notice on these folk. Generic and useless. Fails WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - While the article definitely needs rewriting, a simple Google search found enough notable independent coverage regarding him on a national, state, and regional scale. NAADAAN (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete on looking at the news for this person, I was surprised to see a little Wikipedia box in the google results. further surprise and dismay to see an actual article for a trivial and non-notable individual. This is a minor internet viral sensation with a smattering of coverage in local news, social media, and some news-of-the-weird coverage in real media. this qualifies IMO as a [WP:BIO1E]], a person only known for one thing, i.e. impersonating law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One event does not mean one theme of events. He has done it many times over many years, so many events, surely? CT55555 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * no, we don't tally up each criminal act, the man has "gone viral" for his overall string of impersonations. that is singular in terms of notability, otherwise we'd have every two-bit Instagram influencer here with an article. ValarianB (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am tallying up the events that made the news to a total of more than one. If a "two-bit Instagram influencer" made local and national news various times, for various acts, on various years, I would probably also argue that they are notable for more than one event. If someone says "one event" it is logical that I will tally up the acts, or events.
 * Or let me put it a different way: when the did "one event" happen? Which year? CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every two-bit Instagram influencer gets featured on a national talk show or in national press based on their continuous conduct. I understand the sentiment that this guy shouldn't be notable for being a low-level criminal. However, it is his repeated conduct over the decades as a reason why the media found him worthy of notice, hence notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources above. Meets GNG and BIO, IS RS with SIGCOV addresses the subject directly and indepth and the coverage is LASTING and far from ROUTINE.  // Timothy :: talk  10:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm glad to find that I am finally in the majority here, which has not always been the consensus. I see nothing wrong with naming, blaming, and shaming notable living persons . Bearian (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (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.