Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand and Wrist Institute

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. Though I am immediately recreating it as a redirect to John T. Knight, which mentions this institute. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hand and Wrist Institute[edit]

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

I have looked through the sources and I see nothing to indicate notability. The UK Huffington Post source only mentions this institute in one sentence. This article was created by a sockpuppet User:LAHealthVol, which in itself raises concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

qualifies for G5 and G11 in my opinion —rybec 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy and common sense (to help prevent this sort of thing in the future) is to speedy delete this article along with all the others in the sock case.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill, one-doctor practice. I found nothing but press releases at Google News Archive. I also searched under the name of the physician, since the website of the practice makes quite extraordinary claims for him, but I could not confirm any of them. (The extraordinary claims are not in the article so this turns out to be irrelevant, but I checked because if true they could have made him notable). --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the extent the doctor is notable, there's an article about him, and notability is not inherited. The practice is not notable. -- Scray (talk) 03:15, 16 July 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.