Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sartorius (family)

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. Singularity 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sartorius (family)

Sartorius (family) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I was uncomfortable speedy deleting this under CSD A7, as it might be read to contain a weak of assertion of notability. Still, I see no real evidence of this supposedly scholarly family having done anything encyclopedic. Delete for failing WP:BIO. Xoloz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Google search shows the ref. exists and points to discussion, but desperately needs more WP:RS. JJL (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Based solely on the article and lone source, I fail to see the notability as defined by WP:BIO. This subject may in fact be notable, but not at the moment. Manderson198 (sprech) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We have some Sartoriuses in the database, and a Google search reveals a 1900 book on Google Books describing a family of animal painters, but generally it's individuals who are notable enough to deserve entries, not family names. This should shrink to a diambig at best. --Lockley (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete family doesn't stand out among others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2007 (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.