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) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Jamie Drew Weinand

Jamie Drew Weinand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article created and edited through manipulation of sock puppetry with notability inconclusive due to potentially forged sources Maineartists ( talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, reluctantly, as I'm openly trans and seek to increase and improve representation of trans people on Wikipedia. But sockpuppetry and dubious sourcing (see article talk page for details) is not the way to go about accomplishing this objective. Funcrunch ( talk) 17:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Even if most of the apparently inflated claims in the article were verified, I believe the subject wouldn't meet notability guidelines. I'd love to be proven wrong. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The article talk page is deleted with the page, assuming the AfD succeeds, no? As well as the sock-puppet investigation, the discussion on Draft talk:Jamie Weinand and Draft:Martin Edward Weinand, and also the publication (and subsequent citing and later deletion) of a press release citing this Wikipedia page should be mentioned here. Trankuility ( talk) 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Guest reading article: this subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.117.242 ( talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't this be deleted by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B07D:EF2D:95A7:231B:A68D:FCE9 ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• comment It takes 7 days from when the AfD was created to give the proper voting process to occur. There are 2 more days. Maineartists ( talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  AfD debates can be closed earlier per WP:SNOW if there's overwhelming consensus, but with only five !votes (including the nominator) to date, I don't think that's applicable here. Funcrunch ( talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete no sign of notability. This almost seems it could be a candidate for deletion as a hoax. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 20 April 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.