Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McSoriley

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John McSoriley

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third-party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Not notable as a writer or public official. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important New Zealand legislative interpreter for lawmakers.Rick570 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important according to who? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Constitution Advisory Panel [1] list of source documents: [2]Rick570 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link verifies your claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A publication by this person cited by the current official Government enquiry leading to reform of the NZ constitution (search the bibliographic list in the second link).Rick570 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not verify your peacocked claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Lacks multiple independent sources which establish that he is notable (rather than has a job). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes cite four independent sources.Rick570 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 November 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.