Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaden McNeil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jaden McNeil

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jaden McNeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star Yes This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG Yes The source is principally about the article subject. ✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury Yes This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting. Yes This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG. Yes This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject. ✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league ? Moot as not SIGCOV ? Moot as not SIGCOV No He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets. ✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes why not? ? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. ✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes Why not? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. ✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. Yes This coverage is principally about McNeil. ✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. No McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once. ✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. ? There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above. ? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities. ✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog Yes Sure? No While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom. ? Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. ✘ No
BroBible Yes Sure? ~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source Yes Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. ~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed Yes Why not? Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely. ✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities. ✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 ✔ Yes
MEL Magazine Yes Sure? ~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source. Yes Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT. ~ Partial
Mother Jones Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL. Yes Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV. ✔ Yes
Vice Yes Why not? ~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability. Yes Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:
  1. The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
  2. The Manhattan Mercury: 1
  3. Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
  4. Mother Jones: 1.
This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:
McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Sports Illustrated
  2. The Manhattan Mercury
  3. Yahoo! News
  4. The Sporting News
  5. AP 1 and 2
  6. ESPN
  7. KC Star
  8. USA Today
As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're done here. Looks like the opposers have given up HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sw 36914 You got called out for lying in this AfD discussion. And keep trying to get me banned by saying I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, without any proof. What makes you think that's gonna work? @Liz I think we're done here. 100% of the people are not going to agree to keep the page, but an administrator gave reasons why the page should stay and showed examples on how it goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. 100% are not going to agree, but if most people do, we should end the discussion. Being here forever is pointless. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread his reply and noticed my error a day later, as I'm not paying too close attention to this page. I apologize for the mistake, but it was not intentional. As for us "being done here," we're not; let other people give their input. You've given yours already. Swinub★ 04:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaden_McNeil&oldid=1263706669"