Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entities of interest

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. Michig (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entities of interest

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

Essentially just a dictionary definition, and unlikely, I believe, to be significantly expanded. Most of the search results I see aren't precisely using it in the indicated sense, but simply as the simple combination of the words in the phrase. Open to a redirect to Person of interest or something better. Note that [1] appears to be taken from Wikipedia. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a dictionary." Once you explain what the three words mean together there is nothing much more to say. To write an article on the entities themselves (not the expression) you would have to cover anything a police department might be interested in investigating. That's a really limitless topic. BigJim707 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Person of interest is marginal too, but at least has some interesting (if you'll pardon the expression) history. BigJim707 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy with the depth in person of interest, heck, I defended (and still defend) chili burger as getting past NOTDICT. This, on the other hand.... --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not vote to delete Person of interest. However it's really about the history and implications of the words, not about the people of interest themselves. Borock (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a dictionary definition, and the meaning is far too general to write an article about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, while designating someone a person of interest may have repercussions, legally and otherwise (as discussed in the article), that does not apply to objects of interest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to being a dictionary definition, it is covered by person of interest and suspect. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 22:53, 18 March 2013 (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.