Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Simpson

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Simpson

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

Twice declined speedy delete. No reliable sources have been provided, and my own searches turned up nothing better. Even ignoring the major issues with the page, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as non-notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I actually planned to nominate when I first saw it tagged and there's simply nothing to insinuate better here. Pinging past users Ritchie333 and Lantay77. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. At the very best would qualify for a passing mention in one of our quackery or cannabis (drug) articles, maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from it's NPOV problems, there's an obvious lack of notablity to justify a standalone article.JCO312 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (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.