Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Wertkin


 * 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. There is consensus that neither he nor the event are notable at this point, although the arrest's notability might increase with time.  So Why  06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Wertkin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

American lawyer. The event he was involved in was notable, he is not. WP:1E. Most of the article is just describing his ordinary life as a lawyer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to new article titled Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin with a subsection on him - The arrest is notable, he isn't. Therefore, I propose creation of a new article solely dedicated to his arrest, with a subsection on Wertkin himself. Jdcomix (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC) New article has been created - Thank you Jdcomix for the suggestion of a new article about the arrest, which we all agree is notable. It has been created here Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin. Although I think Wertkin is still a notable person and we should keep his BLP, if consensus is to just have the Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin page at this time, then I'll agree to delete it. He has not yet been arraigned and the implications of his actions could have far reaching consequences on many important Federal cases in the U.S., meaning he may become very notable in the near future as things come to light in his trial. If that is the case, I would like to revisit him having a BLP, and I reserve the right to recreate it if he becomes more notable independent of this arrest. Sound good? --Radom event gen (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete this per nomination.  I have also nominated Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin for speedy deletion per WP:A10 which it is, as long as this is still running. And an outcome of this, to rename it and try to refocus it, doesn't change the issues raised in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The patrolling admin redirected the "arrest" article here per this]. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The original concerns about this article were resolved by creating Arrest of Jeffrey Wertkin. If Jeffery Wertkin is not notable, it should be deleted so that Arrest of Jeffery Wertkin can be reinstated as soon as possible. It is an evolving notable event as Wertkin is set to be arraigned soon, and new information should be added as the situation develops. Radom event gen (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the duplicate article you created violates BLP any less than this does. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS btw. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete both this and the content fork/redirect/whatever it is about his arrest. If not for the arrest, Wertkin would clearly not be notable. And the part about the arrest fails WP:PERP for two reasons: first, because it only uses from-the-event news sources, rather than showing that there's any ongoing and long-term significance to the story. And second, it only says that he has been charged, but not that he has been convicted, and unless/until he has, we can't treat him as having committed a crime let alone being notable for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:1E. Take out that coverage, and no notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:38, 10 September 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.