Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Hall II

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Hall II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hello! On behalf of the company Salty and Mr. Hall, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've nominated this pseudo-biography about a low-profile individual for deletion, per WP:BLP1E. I've completed a thorough review of available sourcing and determined that Mr. Hall is not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time, per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for people. Of the 12 citations in the current article, 9 point to Mr. Hall's official site, which fails reliable sourcing and cannot be used to establish notability under the basic criteria for people, and has been inactive since 2017. References #2 and #5 are primary sources as well, and #2 does not mention the subject. Reference #11 is the only citation that qualifies for inclusion. However, it does not qualify as significant coverage. None of the sources cited provide the type of in-depth coverage required for establishing notability, and the article's main focus is an allegation about something for which he was later cleared.

I performed searches for Mr. Hall on Google, Google News (and archive), and Google Books, using a variety of names he may be referenced with including "James L. Hall II", "James L. Hall", "James Hall", and "Jim Hall". All of these yielded very few or no results associated with James L. Hall II, so I continued to search by adding his various business associations. The only coverage I'm seeing specifically about the subject is this Deseret News article about the initial fraud accusation, which is already referenced above, and this follow-up piece from the same outlet after Mr. Hall was cleared of the charges. Neither source provides adequate biographical detail, whether considered on their own merits or in conjunction, to produce an article that would meet Wikipedia's standards. The fact that coverage of the case remained local further indicates that this subject should not have an article, per Wikipedia's policy on subjects notable only for one event. Other mentions of the subject found through searches are from primary sources that cannot be used to establish notability.

There's not enough coverage to flesh out a biography with details about his early life, education, career, personal life, etc. Coverage of Mr. Hall appears to be minimal, and entirely centered around a single event that was not widely covered. Per pseudo-biographies: "If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." I should also note, the article seems to have been created by a single purpose account back in 2011. I understand that my conflict-of-interest in bringing this article forward for deletion may cause skepticism, particularly because it involves a page with reference to a lawsuit. However, given the lack of reliable sources about the subject, Wikipedia's policy for people who are not public figures, and are accused of a crime, and previously cited policies, I cannot find any reason to keep this article.

I appreciate editors taking the time to review this deletion request. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could be totally wrong, but if Mr. Hall has requested that this be deleted, doesn't the nominator link to that request? Also, Mr. Hall wasn't alleged to have committed fraud; he had a bench trial and was acquitted, according to this article (although several links are dead). I agree, though, that he seems to be a non-notable individual. Caro7200 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the coi and the subjects desire to remove the damaging information, I believe he is indeed not notable. The article can be deleted per WP:BIODEL, and as a WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Admins do need to take a closer look though. Less Unless (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims of notability that would meet WP:GNG I also looked at a version of the article from a couple years ago, no claims of notability found. I did a google search and got lots of hits, but it is a common name. I did not find anything showing this person is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:BLP1E. I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place. I don't need to add anything more to the discussion, except that I once created a similar article and it was crushed into the salt of Carthage. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly not a notable businessman. So it does not matter whether the subject wants this article, there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (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.