Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks


 * 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   delete. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Meeks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. A non-notable person who got mentioned during the news cycle because his arrest got him modelling offers. It's trvial, 'news of the weird' stuff. Lack of significant third party coverage outside of this 1E. Hasn't distinguished himself as a WP:PERP (his current career) or as a WP:ENT (his possible new career). Just showing that many sources covered the same 1E doesn't magically make him notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep - Meeks is receiving substantial international coverage in international publications such as http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/article/sexy-prisoner-jeremy-meeks-bans-cameras-court-hearings and http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Doug+Camilli+Studly+convict+Jeremy+Meeks+lands+agent/9993309/story.html. At this point, it is too soon to tell whether or not this suffers from recentism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse number of sources with significant coverage. It's all the same stuff, over and over, based on 1E. And since you brought up WP:RECENTISM, that essay suggests a 10 year test....this isn't even passing the 6 month test. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Amount of coverage irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. Yes, a number of sources mention this soon-forgotten bit of 'net fluff. However, there is not significant coverage of him anywhere. Yes,he was arrested by a police department, but that does not say anything about that police department. Yes, he allegedly is or was a Crip, but that doesn't tell us anything about the Crips. Within 6 months, no one will remember Dreamy McMug. The speed with which this went from two redirects to bad trivia sections with a suggestion of a split to (50 minutes later) an article makes me wonder why you started the discussion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A person does not get past WP:GNG just because a lot of publications pick up the same "human interest" story about a minor and completely non-encyclopedic accomplishment — he requires substantive coverage for something significant to warrant an article on here, and that's lacking. If three or four years from now he hits the bestseller lists with his memoir My Fifteen Minutes of Internet Fame, and wins a Pulitzer Prize for it, that would be something — but merely being an internet meme for fifteen minutes or so, and having a bunch of newspapers pick up and repeat the same story about that without adding anything meaningfully new to the coverage, just makes him a WP:BLP1E with no substantive reason why he needs an article in an encyclopedia. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/userfy. Right now this is one of those cases of "one event". The guy is infamous for his mug shot and that's all that the news stories are about: the same story. The news articles aren't even really that in-depth when you come down to it. Some may look long, but they're all essentially re-hashing the same story over and over again. Someone can userfy this if they want to, but right now there just isn't enough. Plus we also have to think about the possibility of this doing harm against the person in this instance. Not a reason to delete, but his wife and mother have publicly spoken out about how they dislike the photo being distributed on the Internet. They probably wouldn't appreciate the Wikipedia page either, to be honest. Again, not a reason to delete but something we should take into consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. This is at best WP:SINGLEEVENT. Unless people are showing interest in this subject over the long term which at this point clearly has not been demonstrated, or he leverages the recent "15 minutes of fame" to get himself involved in notable activities, he is not notable. In those cases this should still be deleted for now because of WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the type of one-event, passing coverage that Wikipedia rules are designed to keep out of the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2014 (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.