Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (3rd 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. Sources have been presented that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I considered nominating this for CSD WP:G4, but the previous AFD was almost ten years ago, and I have no idea if the article content is substantially similar, so perhaps it's better to bring this to AFD for consideration. I essentially agree with the previous nominator, and I don't believe anything has changed since then. This is a borderline WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP fail, with the obvious caveat that she is known for two things. However, it is still really no more than a case of someone having 15 minutes of fame for one trivial curiosity, and then briefly raising to public consciousness again because an otherwise fairly unremarkable robbery-murder happened to be committed by someone who had previously been a media curiosity, and the press can never resist that. Hug^syrup 11:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG is easily met with multiple WP:RSs. The nominator ignores our guidelines for WP:N and WP:V and makes a vague wave at a WP:BLP1E claim which clearly does not apply...I am sure the nominator knows that WP:BLP2E does not exist. The rationale seems to be someone didn't like it before, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. FYI: The subject was world famous for her medical condition, and then again world famous for her crime. We keep articles which meet the heavier burden of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. See: Juli Briskman AfD which I argued against keeping - I was wrong. Jennifer Mee has been in the news more than 10 years with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. She has received international coverage in reliable sources. This is an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GNG is easily met. Indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (2nd nomination) establish that yet again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  How does the 2nd nomination establish "yet again" that GNG is easily met, when the 2nd nomination ended in delete consensus? – Levivich 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I improved sourcing — no longer the article it was when first nominated for deletion — and WP:Hey applies. Given the present sourcing, WP:Notability established by multiple WP:RS. Q.E.D., WP:Before was clearly violated; you are supposed to do a search, and nominate ONLY when the article is unsalvageable. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper WP:I don't like it is no justification for this time waster. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep for reasons set forth above. User:Hugsyrup 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC. For example, here's another source published by the Harvard University Press. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it's not SNOW – Pardon me for saying so, but the four keep !votes above should be tossed, and I'm happy to elaborate on that on my talk page. Here's a real keep !vote, one with sources: the article subject meets WP:BASIC per St Petersburg Times via Chicago Tribune 2007, AFP via NYT 2007, NYT 2010, The Telegraph (UK) 2010, ABA Journal 2010, ABA Journal 2013, AP via People 2013 [1], and One Breath Away, a 448-page true crime book written by M. William Phelps and published by Kensington Books in 2016. The 2nd nomination resulted in delete, but it was written in 2010, and we now have a number of new RSes with which to write an article, including the full-length book. – Levivich 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment User:Levivich It is nice that you voted "!keep". I appreciate your research. You proved what we knew: that there was no compliance with WP:Before.

  However, your gratuitous slap is unwelcome. unbecoming, unhelpful, uncivil and wrong. Keep your views about other editors's votes to yourself. I, for one, would never disparage your conduct or vote. I WP:AGF, which is something that you should reacquaint yourself.

  That being said, it would be nice if you actually added to the article (these sources would help), and didn't just drive by and flag wave sources at the AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a comment on the content. If, like me, you were thinking that parts of the article seemed to be copied and pasted without regard for flow, punctuation, etc, Earwig says: you're right! I've removed or rewritten the copy/pastes that I spotted, and I have placed an appropriate user warning, but if you spot more, please follow WP:C and do what's needed to keep us in line with our copyright policies. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is about fostering the community of editors and building the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 7&6=thirteen. All of us volunteering our time to build an encyclopedia ...and some here for the friction. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been found proving this passes the general notability guidelines. She got coverage for being hiccup girl, then for her crime. Dream Focus 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes the minimum requirements for WP:ANYBIO. Also thanking the nominator for bringing this here, however it turns out, as they have allowed us to establish a consensus one way or the other, an opportunity which would have been lost if they had taken the "easy option" and tagged G4. I also note that the only editors who actually (in the vernacular) "toss" !votes are the closing admin; yet, when they do, they studiously avoid using loaded, pergorative terms such as that  :) ——SN54129 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Subject has received plenty of third party media attention.BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (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.