Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (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 Delete Mandsford 20:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mee

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

First off, I see that there was an AfD #1 several years ago when she was only hiccup girl, which IMO should have been deleted as an iron-clad WP:ONEEVENT. It wasn't, but attitudes towards BLP's and 1E have I think become tighter since then, so if that AfD was held today, I'm sure it'd close as a delete. But anyways, at some point after that close on 29 May 2007, this article was redirected to something like Hiccuping I presume, but then that redir deleted on 19 June 2007. This is a new article created a few days ago. As for this nomination, what we have here is a woman who got her 15 minutes of fame a few years back for being unable to stop hiccuping, then nothing til a few days ago she was arrested for murder charges. I presume we'll see arguments along the lines of "that is a second event, thus invalidating WP:BLP1E concerns", but I honestly do not see it that way. She was "known" briefly for a single thing (hiccuping) 3 years ago, then faded quickly from the limelight. IMO the only reason this is popping up again is because some beat writer saw an otherwise ordinary murder rap on a young woman come across his desk and said "hey, isn't that the old hiccuping girl?" and ran with it. I'd like/hope to see a bit of editorial discretion here on whether this is the type of article we wish to have on the Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Notability (people)#What is one event is the consideration, and I question whether being arrested should be considered as having "ballooned from there" as with the examples given in that section. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply being a murder suspect isn't an encyclopedic claim to notability, nor will it become such if she's eventually convicted. So this is still essentially a WP:BLP1E. That said, I imagine we'll get a wave of "OMG KEEP IT WUZ ON TEH NEWZ!!!1" from all the usual suspects, and we'll get a no-consensus close and then another AFD leading to a unanimous delete in a few months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions do not a suspect make: "All three suspects admitted to their involvement and were charged with 1st degree felony murder." That would make you the "confessed killer".

Delete. Andrew Lenahan has it right - neither of the two know things about her are notable, and two unnotable things does not a notable person make. Sadly, I fear he's probably also correct that this will get piled on by people who don't understand what WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PEOPLE and WP:BLP are all about. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per the deleter's correct counterargument that one event will be argued as not applying since events run from 2007 to 2010. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do not run "from 2007 to 2010"; these are two blips separated by several years. And I said what I said in the nom in an (obviously futile) attempt to stave off boilerplate ARS nonsense. She was known for ONE thing in 2007, dropped out of the limelight for years, and just happens to be name-dropped in a few news stories of the day today for no other reason then that previous 15 minutes. I'm asking for a little thoughtfulness and common-sense here for a change, a genuine reflection on what it means to be a subject of encyclopedic value, rather than knee-jerk "KEEP ITS NOTABLE!" stuff. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, it was BLP1E the first time around. As she stands now, she fails WP:PERP. What was a non-notable person before commits a crime that doesn't meet the criteria for notability of criminal acts.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems this is an example of TWO EVENTS, and which side of the line something like this should fall in is debatable; by IAR, one could either keep or delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two events. The first of which is of dubious notability and the second of which isn't close to passing notability. Sadly, murders are so commonplace that there is no real notability in a run of the mill homicide. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you define notability in this context? I can't imagine you are referring to WP:N as that is clearly met. What exactly are you trying to say? Hobit (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, not notable, not enough reliable sources, etc. Multiple issues.--InaMaka (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is a non-notable criminal, events like this are depressingly common. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you define notability in this context? Do you mean WP:N or something else? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really folks? Isn't this a case of "IDONTLIKEIT"? Is this a WP:BLP1E? Clearly not. Is there any problem with WP:N? Clearly not, there are a massive number of sources. So, we get back to the more fundamental question of what we should have articles on. My personal opinion is that if reliable sources felt it was worth covering and it doesn't run afoul of other issues, we should keep. To argue "it's just a guideline" is bogus when the guideline clearly applies. Finally the article was kept in 2007 and the coverage has only increased (not to mention added another event). In my opinion should we have an article on her? Sure. I see no harm and I see benefit to anyone researching the subject. (And you know folks will). Wikipedia won't be significantly worse off without the article, but that's true of 99% of our articles. And we would be worse off without all of them. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nauseated by the 2007 AfD, honestly, but as I noted above I believe that there has been a sea change in regards to hew we handle such articles in the last 3 years. There's no way on earth such an article would be kept if it came up in 2010. And no, its not "I don't like it", it is a nomination questioning whether something like this really satisfies the spirit of "has been involved in more than one event". Look at some of our recent contentious BLP1E deletes lately, e.g. the JetBlue guy or Debrahlee Lorenzana. What if next week one of them goes on a bender and wraps a car around a telephone pole? You know the drive-by media would glom onto that in a heartbeat. Would you honestly open a DRV in that case to get the article created, on a basis of "now we have two events", or support someone else that filed one? Tarc (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the article on Debrahlee Lorenzana to begin with as I believe the coverage of her in the context of sex and gender in the workforce pushed it beyond BLP1E and NOTNEWS. I'd prefer an event article of course. The Jet Blue guy is probably covered best by an event article in any case even if he went on a bender and made national news again. I just don't see why we avoid covering people and events that meet our inclusion guidelines AND have seen such massive coverage. In my opinion it creates a blind spot in Wikipedia. Maybe we should brush under the rug all these tabloid like things. But I think they are actually relevant, not just for themselves, but as a commentary on society and the media. Hobit (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fall on that side of DGG's line--but I consider these only half-events, so to speak. Some coverage of either one does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe google had 100 articles on the latest story. So again, what is notability in this context if not WP:N? Hobit (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Murders are a dime a dozen in the US, and hiccups, while marginally more rare, have no impact on anything. So there's two non-notable parts of this person, and the two combined don't add up to a notable person. C628 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presents BLP issues, even if it's not a BLP1E. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent at Paris Hilton. Insignificant stuff adds up, evidenced by the fact that the subject received coverage in the United States on all the major networks in 2007 (plus factoid blurbs in TIME and a couple books) and is again receiving coverage on all the major networks in 2010. Location (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is hardly even known nationally and will likely be forgotten by next week. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for criminals and WP:BLP1E. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:42, 4 November 2010 (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.