Deletion of Wesley Weber

Comment: Hello {{ping|Bearcat}} I have to disagree with you this time. I agree that the article needs to be improved but the notability of a subject is not based on the references included in the article.  states that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: To those arguing , I don't think this argument can be made on the first criteria. The subject has been covered in the context of two different events: counterfeiting and later his work within the cannabis industry. That said, I do think both the 2nd and 3rd critera for that rationale are accurate which is why I am on the fence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much, much better than this. More than half the footnotes here are |primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all rather than reliable ones (even one of the ones that looks like a reliable source is him speaking about himself in the ''first'' person), the few that are reliable sources don't add up to ''enough'' coverage to deem him as passing GNG, and even with sources present the article ''still'' features as many ''unsourced'' claims as sourced ones — and when we're talking about people whose notability is staked on ''crime'', we have to be ''extremely'' careful to make sure that the referencing is absolutely airtight. (People are not, for instance, permanently notable just because they once got arrested for growing marijuana, so the fact that a local-media citation can be added for that does not actually constitute evidence of notability per se — and even criminals get the basic  protection that their alleged crimes still have to be ''properly sourced'', so the securities fraud claims here that are still ''completely'' unsourced don't contribute any notability points.) Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, so we definitely need ''much'' more reliable source coverage than this before we can deem him as passing  in ''lieu'' of having to pass any subject-specific notability criteria. We don't just indiscriminately keep an article about every person who's ever been convicted of just any random crime — the crime itself still has to be legally, culturally and socially ''significant'', not just technically verifiable, before an article is warranted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:BLP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup|Deletion is not cleanup. The articles does need improvement, but a basic search reveals that the subject clearly meets  as there is in-depth coverage by multiple sources including news articles and various books and continues to receive current news coverage (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-cafe-cannabis-dispensaries-1.5217307 see example). The nominator is a novel editor and perhaps is not yet familiar with efore
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:B)

Comment: basically per Bearcat above. The article has been from the start and remains one giant  disaster, and currently is essentially a   case. If someone can rewrite the article from scratch into something resembling a neutral and properly sourced to secondary sources actual biographical  compliant article (rather than a list of arrests, charges and convictions), go right ahead. But there is nothing in the current page worth keeping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:G11||WP:G10||WP:BLP)