Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justen Ericksen

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justen Ericksen[edit]

[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)

Balant promotional content by possible undisclosed paid edits. Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only 2 references which may be good have expired, any searches I've done only come up with the same story about a local lawsuit for copyright violations with no follow up between this gentleman's company and another. I see no one else outside of smaller local coverage has taken notice of this gentleman which means Wikipedia shouldn't either. This fails WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much of the sourcing is to websites of his companies. I also have to say I find the Food Insurance article lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sources are not good and give errors Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless more information from reliable sources can be found, he fails my standards for lawyers. He was a "leading editor" of a law review, but that's the only factor I see. Ping me if you find anything more that could change my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2019 (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.