Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rathmann (investigator)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Jim Rathmann (investigator)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Jim Rathmann (investigator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable either for his military career or investigative career. His only mentions are in passing in relation to a popular case and his military career obviously doesn't qualify. CUPIDICAE❤️ 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Military, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I couldn't find any sources that provide specific and independent coverage of Rathmann to justify and article. Cortador (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing that's missing from this WP:LINKEDIN-like article is some football-based life advice about championships and the goal line. I've never seen a BLP with so many sources (65 cites among 40 sources, but most of them are just pay-for-play morning newscast hits or incidental mentions) end up so hollow. Also incredibly clear that the main editor of this article just didn't come upon the subject as a cool guy to profile without some financial assistance. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  the excessive sourcing-non-sourcing is a pretty telling-tale sign of complete fuckin' nonsense. CUPIDICAE❤️ 23:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I was not able to find any significant, independent sources for him that would support the creation of a standalone page. Sethi752 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Military record is non-notable on the whole. The Bronze Star on its own does not convey notability. Intothatdarkness 12:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - if he did pay for this, then he was robbed. Everybody knows we are not social media. I'm on record for warning people at the last Wikimedia NYC about predatory editing for pay. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  He must not be a very good investigator. 🥁 CUPIDICAE❤️ 17:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete pretty evident WP:PROMO and non-notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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.