Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Meeks (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Meeks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted article that still doesn't rise to the level of notability. There's a lack of significant coverage. Most of the coverage is either run of the mill or narrowly focused on the novelty of a very brief "15 minutes" about his mug shot. In the end, it's just another non-notable model. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep - This third nomination is an abuse of process. Meeks is covered in depth in multiple reliable sources.  At a bare minimum, if the article cannot be kept, his name should redirect to Gina Rodriguez (pornographic actress). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Abuse of the process? Are you serious? The first was a delete. The second was a no consensus. There has never actually been a keep result. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the process before you make any more bad faith allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the fact that a AfD was held in July. It is too soon to initiate another one. This person has recieved media attention beyond a one time event. Both national and international coverage. The sources in the article are good and third party. This makes WP:GNG covered.BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 3 months is not too soon, especially when the last result was a no consensus. The minimal coverage is either run of the mill or novelty coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no opinion yet but can editors stop using the legitimacy of this nomination as an excuse to keep? The second AfD closed as "no consensus"; if Niteshift (or anyone else for that matter) felt a definitive outcome could be reached, he could have re-nominated the article sooner. "No consensus" suggests the AfD did not garner enough support to keep, delete, or whatever else necessary but it does not mean the question of notability has been answered. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The man's personal history and the reason he's famous for may cloud the judgement of some editors who are in favor of deletion. I agree, it seems silly to have Wikipedia articles for people who are famous for their mugshots and then tabloid escapades after that fame (so not just one event) over accomplished scientists, but we operate by the standard Wikipedia principles of coverage mattering. In addition to the general tabloids that love him, his more extravagant escapades have netted him a place on the pages of more respectable publications as well. BBC has at least 6 articles about him, with his name in the title five times out of six. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Insipid nomination, no research needed, just read the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Insipid answer. I read the article and sources, that's why it is back here in AfD. Nice to see you are still nursing your grudge. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * insipid mw.com 2 :lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge :dull, flat. Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your answer was dull and lacking stimulation. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So my statement was dull and lacking in stimulation. Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For describing his/her nomination as "insipid", User:Niteshift36 has, on my talk page, templated me, and in the edit comment accused me of incivility. Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's about good faith. But who needs accuracy? And I've mentioned that you are nursing a grudge too. Don't forget that. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling the statement as being about "good faith" is a half-truth, because the words "good faith" are modified by the word "not". Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. The edit summarry is automatically generated by Twinkle. I didn't type it and the actual message says "Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you." So try again. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your words regarding the edit comment are, "I didn't type it". The words from Twinkle, with emphasis in the original, are: "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not news and not a tabloid. That basically sums up why we should not have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do I think the subject should be notable? No. Is he notable per coverage? Yes. A quick gNews with a date filter from 2017 onward - gNews from 2017- - clearly shows he is notable for his modelling / gossip/ whatever - the same sort of coverage other high profile models receive.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is gossip and mentioning that "oh, he was in this show" now the significant coverage that GNG requires? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His is significantly treated as a subject (for completely, in my mind, trivial things - as other models). For instance this Daily Mail (not a RS, of course, still confers notability) - A place in the sun: 'Hot felon' Jeremy Meeks bares his sculpted torso as he gambols on the beach for a Malibu photoshoot - provides an in-depth analysis of his physique and sunning activities. This mirror piece addresses his posterior - "Hot felon" Jeremy Meeks is pictured with his pants down while on another yacht holiday with Topshop heiress girlfriend Chloe Green with quite some depth. This US Magazine piece 'Hot Felon' Jeremy Meeks Vacations With Chloe Green After Filing For Divorce: Pics addresses his vacation habits following filing for divorce, and this TMZ piece JEREMY MEEKS Beats Wife to the Punch FILES FOR SEPARATION addresses his divorce filing. This all treat him critically, as a subject, and at length. And this is just a random recent selection - there is copious coverage of this nature (as well as some more reliable coverage). By coverage (and some of it is in high-quality non-US RS - for instance here is the BBC from 2016+ -     or telegraph -  or Independent ... And he's covered in other non-US locales as well... So he's notable even an international scale, not just US - which is well beyond what is required) - he meets WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How does a non-RS confer notability? GNG 's first line says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." The mirror source covering his uncovered arse is hardly significant coverage. I really don't call the US coverage of the same thing that significant either. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sufficient for notability, but is an indication of notability. But Meeks has in-depth coverage in RS (as might be seen on the bottom of my reply). He passes on British coverage alone. He even passes on Hebrew coverage - (these are mostly in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage in non-RS's are not an indicator of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please sign your post. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please quit whining about it Jax. You already littered my talk page with your crying over a MINOR OVERSIGHT. Maybe you can start complaining to people about typo's or adding an extra space in their response. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Read it yourself. Complaining multiple times, in multiple locations that a user forgot to sign a single post does not foster civil discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I asked you once on your talk page to sign your post, and my comment was ignored, so I posted here. I was sincere in my belief that the third nomination was an abuse of process, which was not intended as an attack.  Many users are voting keep on this, which constitutes significant discussion.  The first and second AFDs had significant input.  I find the comment "complaining to people about typo's or adding an extra space in their response" to be inflammatory. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you talked about it on my talk page, on your talk page and here. 3 places, hence "multiple times, multiple locations". Many are voting to keep. That's not disputed. The fact is, it is not an abusive nomination by any stretch. The first nom was a delete result. The second had no consensus. There was never a vote to keep this article. If this ends up being a keep, so be it, but thus far, there never was a keep result. If anything, you should be happy that there will finally be an actual keep result instead of complaining about it. BTW, I've asked you in the past to not ping me every time you respond to me. I clearly have the page on my watchlist. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

*Weak keep - only because there are many scholarly independent sources that refer to his quick rise to fame in a way that consitutes notability. However, I'm not convinced that this article does no harm, which is a guidepost for biographies of living people. Scholarly sources reference him not because his actions, per say, but because of the media attention he gained as a result of the Stockton Police Department publishing his mug shot on their Facebook page, which in way, is notability for the concept of internet celebrity and attention, and the different sets of meanings that photographic representations of a face have (police archive versus social media). However, while it's a weak link, at this point, I believe the enduring attention over the years that his career has received -- despite being an example of social media fame -- satisfies WP:GN.
 * Keep as per WP:Kardashian, or whatever you want to call the reality that when they pass WP:GNG - as this subject does, we keep articles on individuals with no personal merit aside from the fact that garner SIG and ONGOING coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References that could be added to improve the article:

Academic / scholarly articles and books


 * French, Liam. 2015. "Most Wanted: Cameras, Criminal Justice and the Persistence of Vision" Accessed at: https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/06/22/most-wanted-cameras-criminal-justice-and-the-persistence-of-vision/
 * Rich, L.E. & Ashby, M.A. Bioethical Inquiry (2014) 11: 269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-014-9569-5
 * Travis, L. F. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice. Burlington, MA.
 * Wilder, J. (2015). Color stories: black women and colorism in the 21st century.

Newspaper articles
 * ABBOTT, M 2014, 'Our Love Affair With the Mug Shot', New York Times, 20 July, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 October 2017.
 * HESS, A 2016, 'Popular Nobodies', New York Times, September, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 October 2017.

Shameran81 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - he himself is not notable, but the coverage that he got is.Acnetj (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the first AfD and per add'l sources offered during this discussion. Clearly passes WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2017 (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.