Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Weber


 * 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. Initially, the discussion tended towards deletion, but following considerable editing, it is now evident that the bio subject's counterfeiting crime has had more than passing mention by independent, reliable sources. Beyond that, however, there is little else to make the case for notability and the BLP1E concerns expressed by others prevent a clear-cut consensus.  JGHowes   talk  04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)‎

Wesley Weber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the information Lacks of references and also person seems does not have reliable sources just known for one thing which 100$ bill. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

*Delete without prejudice per Bearcat.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC) If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The articles does need improvement, but a basic search reveals that the subject clearly meets WP:GNG as there is in-depth coverage by multiple sources including news articles and various books and continues to receive current news coverage (see example). The nominator is a novel editor and perhaps is not yet familiar with WP:Before. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am unsure about notability and WP:BIO1E aspects here, but currently the article looks to be pretty much in the WP:G10 territory. Some of the versions in the page history are even worse (here is a sample from Dec 2008). If the page is ultimately kept, even under a different title, I think that portions of the page history log would need to be revdel-ed or oversighted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much, much better than this. More than half the footnotes here are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all rather than reliable ones (even one of the ones that looks like a reliable source is him speaking about himself in the first person), the few that are reliable sources don't add up to enough coverage to deem him as passing GNG, and even with sources present the article still features as many unsourced claims as sourced ones — and when we're talking about people whose notability is staked on crime, we have to be extremely careful to make sure that the referencing is absolutely airtight. (People are not, for instance, permanently notable just because they once got arrested for growing marijuana, so the fact that a local-media citation can be added for that does not actually constitute evidence of notability per se — and even criminals get the basic WP:BLP protection that their alleged crimes still have to be properly sourced, so the securities fraud claims here that are still completely unsourced don't contribute any notability points.) Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, so we definitely need much more reliable source coverage than this before we can deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any subject-specific notability criteria. We don't just indiscriminately keep an article about every person who's ever been convicted of just any random crime — the crime itself still has to be legally, culturally and socially significant, not just technically verifiable, before an article is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello I have to disagree with you this time. I agree that the article needs to be improved but the notability of a subject is not based on the references included in the article. WP:GNG states that:
 * Any reliable sources with non trivial coverage that are independent do contribute towards establishing GNG, even if they are not included in the article at this time. As I said above a google search reveals plenty of reliable sources that do fit that criteria, for example from news like:
 * -Who's really behind Toronto's chain of illegal pot shops that won't quit? extensive coverage
 * -CBC News program coverage form minute 1:30 - 2:23 labels him as a legendary counterfeiter
 * -Counterfeiting: Notes on a scandal one sentence about how he crippled Canada's $100 bill by using techniques he found on websites
 * -The worlds most notorious counterfeiters who made a fortune page 6 and 7
 * -Cannabis Canada: Is a white knight for CannTrust in 'everyone’s interest'? labels him "one of the country’s most prominent counterfeiters."
 * Books besides the one currently used as a reference in the article:
 * -The end of money More than a page on Weber
 * -Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor a paragraph on Weber
 * Besides this, he was even featured in the 59th episode of the tv show Masterminds: titled Money Maker it can be watched here (the person appearing and talking as Weber is an actor, not the subject himself)
 * the show, as well as many reliable sources, label him as the most notorious counterfeiter. There are also international reliable sources in other languages like the one included in the article and this one from Spain: Grandes falsificadores. Also 25 hits in Google Scholar: see here
 * To me, the subject clearly meets our GNG. I agree that the article can and should be improved, but as I said before Deletion is not cleanup. It is not my area of interest, but I think the subject is notable enough to be in our encyclopedia, so I will try to improve it once this AfD ends. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GNG is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show an arbitrary number of media hits; for instance, notability is not demonstrated by one-line mentons of his name in sources about something else, image galleries, IMDb, DailyMotion or YouTube content. Sure, we take the number of hits under advisement, but that's not the only thing we take into account: we also consider the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what he's getting covered for. Not all possible sources are created equal, and not all possible sources contribute +1 to a person's GNG tally — some sources are better than others, and some sources fail to count as GNG support at all. There are people in the world who can show twice as many sources as that but still not be notable, if their sourcing still fails any of the range, depth or context tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an arbitrary number of hits, just in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Did you review the sources I posted? please let me know if you think any of this three books does not contribute towards establishing notability:, The end of money, Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor. do you think that this article with extensive coverage is a one line mention? do you think that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not reliable or independent? What about the sites like lovemoney.com that dedicate two pages to the subject in their article about most notorious counterfeiters. is the site not WP:RS or the coverage not in depth. Being the subject of a whole TV series episode of Masterminds (Canadian TV series) which was broadcast in the US and Canada television by History Television and Global TV does not contribute towards WP:GNG? About the Geographic range, isn't the US, Canada, Spain and Indonesia for which I listed reliable sources with in depth coverage enough? The reasoning about other people is not valid per WP:WHATABOUTX and the opposite argument (also not valid) could be easily made by looking at the subjects included in Category:American_counterfeiters. Please do review the sources. GNG is clearly met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * LoveMoney is the image gallery, and is not a reliable source in the first place — so LoveMoney counts for nothing no matter how many times you hammer on it. Book the first is simply a reprint in a compilation of previously published content of one of the articles you've already brought to bear, so is not a new data point that increases his notability score by +1. "The End of Money" just links to a directory entry for the book itself, failing to verify that Weber is actually the subject of any content in it — he might be, sure, but I can't assess whether it constitutes substantive content or not since the link you've shown fails to prove that there's any content at all. "Workplace Privacy" is just a transcript of a conference, not a notability-building piece of written work. Being the subject of an episode of a TV series is not a notability claim in and of itself; such sources go toward notability only if the actual content of the episode is used to support content about Weber as a person, and not if they're being used solely to metaverify their own existence as TV episodes. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * LoveMoney meets WP:RS is a financial news publication subject to editorial control as you can see here: About us - meet the lovemoney team their publications have been used as references in at least 14 other Wikipedia articles. The images in the article titled the world's most notorious counterfiters who made a fortune are the least relevant part of the content. What is clearly in-depth coverage is the two pages about Weber (page 6 and 7). A book reprinting previously printed content is clearly RS and if you do read both the article and the book you will see that they are not by any means the same. they just talk about the same subject but each provide unique information. Clearly one is not a reprint of the other. The end of money is a link to google books where you can read a bit more than one page about the subject. Please try again to access it through the link in my previous comment or the reference in the article. The description of the book by Kluwer Law International is a "collection of essays by outstanding scholars and practitioners in U.S. labour law and practice" why does it not meet RS? The TV episode obviously has in depth coverage of the subject that can be used to source content of the article. I am still improving the article, so I will also be able to use it as a reference. Are the references from Spain or Indonesia or the article from CBC news not RS? I feel that they also meet the requirements for GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete basically per Bearcat above. The article has been from the start and remains one giant WP:BLP disaster, and currently is essentially a WP:G11 WP:G10 case. If someone can rewrite the article from scratch into something resembling a neutral and properly sourced to secondary sources actual biographical WP:BLP compliant article (rather than a list of arrests, charges and convictions), go right ahead. But there is nothing in the current page worth keeping. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject is without a doubt notable since it has received the required in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG there is plenty of source content to create an encyclopedic article so I will start doing it now to prevent it from being deleted. You claim that the article is promotional while another editor claimed just the oposite to justify the !vote . I will try to write a neutral stub to save this notable subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant WP:G10 (an attack page). Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Timeline section has been removed and all claims are sourced by RS so I do not think WP:G10 is met since there is no libel or intimidation anywhere in the current version of the article. Subject has been convicted by a court of law and per WP:PERPETRATOR his crime has been deemed notable by various WP:RS and the coverage has been in depth and persistent in time (latest sources are from a few months ago). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The current version is better, but it is still essentially entirely focused on a single crime. For a BLP bio article, there would need to be at least a modest amount of non-negative biographical information, such as family background, early life, education or something similar. Or, if the main claim to fame here is the counterfeiting of the $100 bill episode, it may be better to create an article specifically about that event/crime instead of a bio article about Weber. Nsk92 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am planing on adding an early life section next, also a section to expand on the counterfeiting (reducing the lead), and another to cover his other activities, trading activities and Marihuana cafes owner/activist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete i too agree with Nsk92 (talk) for deletion under WP:GNG as there is not much notable resources available online, the individual's activities can figure prominently in the section of the act for which he is known for, in this case counterfeit; but to create a bio based on one topic, with not enough supporting online source available is a bit tall ask. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I was about to close this as delete, but I note that most delete votes had concerns about sourcing, and the article has been substantially overhauled in the last day or two. I will relist this one time, and would be interested to hear from, , , , and of course anyone else who is able to comment, on whether the present version of the article is the better version that they were hoping for, or if they would still vote to delete today.
 * Comment I have removed all primary sources from the article as well as the timeline section and changed the article into a referenced stub. I added three sections that can be expanded with the content from the available sources. I still have not included information about his co-ownership of the marijuana cafes or his expertise and business with cryptocurrencies which is also covered by the cited sources. I feel it is now a valid stub, but will continue to improve it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Comment. With the improved sourcing on the counterfeit topic, and the removal of some blp concerning content, and the addition of his coverage by the cbc in cannabis advocacy (although running illegal cannabis stores is also criminal however you spin it), I have decided to withdraw my delete nomination. However, I am not certain if the articles really demonstrates signidicant coverage as he is not the main subject of the articles. I want to hear more from some other contributors on this issue. I am on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you very much for your comment and for the implicit recognition of my efforts with the article, I just wanted to point out that "'Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bold mine. All that is required for significant coverage is that it is more than trivial mentions and that we can extract content for the article without WP:OR. The guideline expressly clarifies that being the main subject of the articles is not a requirement. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. i still have issues like how being a computer nerd or buying cars are added as these are just trivia, also in marijuana advocacy how is his wife owning property matters for a bio, as per WP:BLP1E that states 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. as such my vote for delete stays. its better to include the individual's activities in the section of the act for which he is known for, in this case counterfeit; but to create a bio is still doubtful. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The abilities of the subject with computers and the fact that he called himself a computer nerd was found notable enough to be included in multiple reliable sources, it introduces his ability to be able to perform the complicated task of counterfeiting one of the most secured bills at the time. The luxury is also covered by at least three of the sources and is another important part of a chapter of the biography as they were purchased with the profits from the counterfeiting. The relationship of his wife with the chain of cannabis stores is also covered by a reliable source and helps establish his own relation with the business.
 * I fully disagree with your analysis of this article with regards to WP:BLP1E. Point 1 is not met as the subject has received non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources in relation to various individual events; Counterfeiting, Marijuana, and trading. Point 2 is also not met, as coverage has been persistent in time. the article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019.
 * I ask you to please review WP:BLP1E again, because even if the first two would have been met, which is not the case, it clearly states that all three conditions must be met ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:") Bold mine. the third one is:

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
 * According to this point alone inclusion criteria is clearly met, as the event is clearly significant since it affected more than ten percent of retailers in Canada and prompted the creation of a new 100 dollar bill and clearly his role as mastermind was both substantial and very well documented.
 * On top of that I think I have shown that the requirement of having received in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources outlined in our general notability guidelines is reasonably met and since it does no longer violate WP:ISNOT after my extensive rewrite, I don't think that we can recommend deletion based on our policies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. To those arguing WP:BLP1E, I don't think this argument can be made on the first criteria. The subject has been covered in the context of two different events: counterfeiting and later his work within the cannabis industry. That said, I do think both the 2nd and 3rd critera for that rationale are accurate which is why I am on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello WP:BLP1E Requires for all three to be met. My interpretation of point two is that after the single event passes the subject does not receive any additional coverage form reliable sources. That is also not the case here. I would appreciate it if you could please elaborate on which part of point three do you think is accurate?. do you think the event was not significant or do you think that his role was not substantial or well documented and why? and finally do you agree that if just one of the three points is not met WP:BLP1E does not apply? Thank you for taking the time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that either event in which he was involved is that significant. I would be much more likely to support the article if one of the events he was involved with satisfied wikipedia's notability guidelines for events and had its own article. To me it seems like he was involved significantly within two non-notable events that were covered in the news, and wikipedia is not the news.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Reliable sources claim that the subject "crippled Canada's $100" others label him as "legendary counterfeiter" other as "one of the country’s most prominent counterfeiters."; The Globe and Mail, the History channel and the Windsor Star label him as a "mastermind" They are referring directly to the subject himself and not the event, but in any case, of the multiple events he has received coverage for (there are many more than just the two you mention) the counterfeiting in my opinion clearly meets all requirements for notable events. The first mentions enduring historical significance and lasting effect. It had clearly rippling effects. The History channel made a documentary about the subject and the event. Between 10 and 19 percent of all retailers stopped accepting the 100 dolar bill in the whole country and many continued not accepting them even after he was caught. Countries like the US and others were also affected. Canada changed its currency to incorporate new security features. the event has been used as a case study on various papers and cited by multiple books. Depth of coverage is clearly met, enduring of coverage also (article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019) and diversity of sources is also met Geographically it has received coverage at national level in Canada and from various other countries as far as Indonesia.
 * But also finally WP:BLP1E does not apply to subjects who have been covered in the context of more than one event as it specifically states that each and not some of the 3 points must be met. Would you agree with me that BLP1E can not be applied here? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am still on the fence with this article., what do you think about this one?4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Can you please say on which policy are you basing your answer. Do you agree with my argument that WP:BLP1E does not apply since, as you said, the subject has received coverage for multiple events?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've already been clear, and I am avoiding being explicit on purpose until I make up my mind. Ultimately, it gets down to a question of failing WP:SIGCOV or not which is evaluating where "Wesley Weber" himself was actually the primary coverage of the sources, or whether the events/businesses were the main subject and Wesley Weber was just tangentially a part of those events. It's somewhat subjective, and in this case I could see an argument being made either way.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All the content of the article is sourced by reliable sources that directly mention the subject. He was the "mastermind" of the counterfeiting and the subject of the trading and marijuana sections. Let me insist that WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
 * Bold mine. So even if you could argue that he was not main subject of the sources (with which I disagree), that is clearly excluded as a valid reason in the current wording of the policy (in bold) as long as there is more than trivial mentions by multiple reliable sources so that no WP:OR is needed to extract the content. So I am still asking for a single policy based reason to not !vote to keep the article after all the changes I had to do to try to save it. You at least removed your delete !vote. I think other editors in this AfD need to provide valid policy based reasons to justify their !vote after those changes, as requested by the admin that relisted the discussion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim since I was asked. His counterfeiting is notable. Most of the rest is trivial fluff.
 * I have noticed that many bios of people in either cryptocurrency or cannabis or some genres of music or self-help or professional speakers or life coaches seem to be very willing to acknowledge their earlier misdeeds, as if it in some way validates their later accomplishments It for many centuries has been  customary for religious figures to emphasise their sinful earlier life to emphasise the power of their salvation.  . G10 does not apply here--the intent of many such bios is self-advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I agree with you about not meeting G10 but disagree with the comparison with other bios which could imply that the current version of the article is self-advertising. I stumbled on this article while patrolling for new changes and reverted multiple IP's that were "trimming" sourced information, it seemed strange, so I added it to my watchlist. Then a new user with very few edits opened this AfD, that to me is suspicious. Because of this AfD I found myself forced to improve the article. As you can see by the comments of the relisting admin, If I hadn't done so it would have been deleted. The article has been completely overhauled, so I am responsible for most of its content, and it was me that created those sections. I highly doubt that the subject would be interested in keeping them for the reasons you pointed out, probably the opposite, As you can see in the link to his webpage included in the infobox, he continues to offer cryptocurrency services, something that various independent reliable sources found notable that he did without a license. So I think it is clearly not promotional. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2019 (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.