Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Winters

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Winters

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

As mentioned on FTN, the great majority of this is self-published and otherwise non-independent or non-reliable sources. Attempting to remove those leaves a draft that is not worth posting. Attempting to find other sources and improve the article while remaining within WP:CCPOL results in an unsalvagable mess. Much of the text is refutation of casting doubt on the subject's self-claims. There is one WP:RS about the article subject; a Las Vegas Sun article larded with so many "he claims" and "somebody else says" and other qualifications as to render it nearly useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like pure puffery to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree all very puffy,and seems to be written from an insiders viewpoint.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG Reads like a work of fiction, full of unlikely incidents that are not backed by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like the repeated statements of "not verified by outside sources", which is just a wee bit of a red-flag. Delete per above comments - very puffy biography that fails to meet notability after all self-published and non-reliable sources are disregarded. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (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.