Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack McClellan

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 no consensus. Singu larity 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McClellan

Flash-in-the-pan/famous for fifteen minutes. Not sufficiently notable person for an article, despite the brief flurry of news per shock value. (I have seen articles on murder victims with more news coverage deleted for non-notability. What did this guy do, other than creep people out on a few slow news nights?--nothing noteworthy.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Massively violates WP:BLP, almost certainly GSD 10 as well, particularly given that the only formal legal action that appears to have been taken against this guy is a restraining order. Debate (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I concur that notability is sorely lacking, but CSD G10 does not apply because the article - while almost entirely negative - is not entirely unsourced as the speedy deletion criteria requires. Some of the sources are dubious at best, but it's at least a good faith effort, which trumps CSD. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is there about numerous reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, such as the Associated Press, The Oregonian, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and CBS News, that does not satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N? Several months of time span in the news coverage is not "fifteen minutes." Arguments of "IDONTLIKEIT" or "HECREEPSMEOUT" do not trump Wikipedia notability policy. Edison (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I say weak because I don't see an assertion of notability persay but, have recently missed assertions in other articles and the article is sourced to some very reliable 3rd parties. If it violates WP:BLP though than it needs to go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this doesn't appear to be a flash-in-the-pan or WP:BLP1E type of situation at all. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A prime example of BLP violation. As User:Debate says, what makes this totally inadmissible is that he has not been convicted of anything. I dont care if the NYT thought it met their standards. It does not meet ours. DGG (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that he is the subject of multiple published sources per WP:BIO. However, I have some reservation due to the high potential for WP:BLP violations. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP concerns me as well, but there are sources for a lot of the material in the article. I think the most applicable policy would be WP:BLP1E, which would refer specifically to the incident in August 2007 where the subject became a person of interest (not a suspect as such) in an unsolved murder. I believe a lot of the coverage noted in the article is a result of that brief exposure in the media, and that, per precedent, the subject isn't notable in and of themselves due to that brief attention. Put another way: would the subject have an article if he just ran a website and creeped a lot of people out? I'm not so sure. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notion of a flash-in-the-pan WP:ONEEVENT works a lot better if you don't have a year's worth of cited sources, as this article does. User:Debate's and DGG's assertions notwithstanding, I can find nothing in WP:BLP requiring criminal convictions before reporting on reliably sourced information about the subject's involvements with the authorities. Moreover, while WP:BLP correctly states that we should exercise due caution about outing negative comments that a subject might reasonably not want revealed, a fellow who proudly proclaims the information on his website and on the talk show circuit (and, indeed, the precipitating factors in the world noticing him in the first place) might reasonably be described as having blown the gaffe already. RGTraynor 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--a year? I don't see that; most of the news references are from August, 2007, when he was arrested in Los Angeles. Then there drib/drabs of follow-up in more minor local sources, not national news--one from September, 2007, one from November, 2007, one from March 2008, one from April 2008. That's a span of six months, with all the major coverage from about one week in August,2007. (Does seem like WP:ONEEVENT: the Los Angeles arrest, which didn't result in a conviction). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he first came to the public eye in June 2007. The most recent cite is April 2008. My bad; that's only ten months. RGTraynor 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the article does say that--but there are no reference attached. (I only looked again at the references an hour ago when you posted "year," I didn't reread the article) Are there references that he "came to public attention in June, 2007" (and are they national)? And would that change the story arc much? He "came to attention," then he was arrested but not convicted, then he moved to Portland and was banned from a bookstore, according to a local news report in Portland. All the national news seems to be from a single week in August, 2007 when he was arrested. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is in and out of the news every month or two, for the past year. He's interviewed and talked about on numerous TV shows and by law enforcement agencies. He's not a "flash in the pan" or "fifteen minutes."

He's also not GS10. Just because we see the word 'pedophile' as negative and an attack, doesn't mean he does. He is a pedophile. That is a documented fact, and he freely admits and publicizes it. Whether he's been convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether this is an "attack" page per G10.

In the absence of consensus we have to err on the side of inclusion. Tragic romance (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (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.