Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NJWeedman


 * 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. This is a difficult closure but I am convinced that there is a consensus I can act upon here. This is tempered by a previous deletion under Edward Forchion and the clear WP:BLP issues. I have opted against salting at this time. KaisaL (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

NJWeedman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Problematic WP:BLP, tagged for neutrality issues since 35 minutes after its creation back in January, about a person who was previously deleted at the title Edward Forchion. While this version does bring more reliable sourcing to bear than the last one did, it still leaves a lot of details (some of which are extremely contentious and sensitive) entirely unsourced, and still depends too strongly on lawsuits as a priori evidence of notability (which they aren't). Problematic articles about people have to be sourced extremely carefully because of the reputational harm that a Wikipedia article can cause, but the amount of contentious detail here that remains entirely unsourced is quite simply unacceptable -- especially for a person who doesn't cleanly pass any subject-specific inclusion standard. Even if I can't speedy this G4 due to the differences from the last version, it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial significance at best.  DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm commenting here to ensure a clearer consensus, examining this still found troubles with both convincing information and sources. Delete is best until a better article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT to prevent future page creations. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:16, 1 July 2016 (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.