Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Wetta

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wetta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a promotion for a guy who's looking to sell his life story to Hollywood. How reliable a source is mainjustice.com? Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted multiple times for copyright violation and promotion of the article subject, this individual only has notability due to the fair claims act, at most a redirect to that article should be allowed. I believe it fails gng and although he did it twice I believe it falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I have just finished a source by source search through the sources to verify that there was no further copyright info. What I have found is that Wetta has an incidental mention in most of the article and was never the "key" person for one company he was one of five and the other he was one of two. This further makes me feel stronger this does not merit a stand alone article at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual is not notable. All of the coverage is about the two legal cases, not about him. There is no biographical information at all, and some of the information in the article is contradictory (did he quit, or was he fired?) If the cases had articles, he could be redirected to them, but in their absence, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since the article has already been speedied three times and promptly recreated each time, a WP:SALT might be in order as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If salted it should include Jim Wetta and Jim wetta. if people watchlist the user the users are User:Jimwetta and User:Info2014 The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Dloh cierekim 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two brief mentions in online newsletters does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (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.