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 redirect to Person. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persons[edit]

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

Denis tarasov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article makes no sense and hence I have put it in the "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic". It could be OR, made up, or perhaps legitimate. In any case, the name doesn't make searching easy. I had redirected it to Person, but this was overturned by the article creator. I was going to move it but couldn't think of a disambiguation term. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete'~~ Unless the article is further clarified. I was unable to find the phrase "persons" or "pv" in the Latvian reference supplied and do not understand the definition given in the article. This may may be due to a translation issue Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article cannot be interpreted in any meaningful manner. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't appear that the article's creator, User:Denis tarasov, has been notified of the nomination. I frankly don't understand the article, but it looks like he's referring to a concept in the Latvian constitution and than saying that there are similar ideas in other constitutions. I'd like to hear his side before we simply dismiss this as original research that can't be improved. Mandsford 13:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked - it appears he has been notified (its a little up the page, he's had more than one afd notification recently) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him after seeing Mandsford's comment. But it's likely on his watchlist so he was probably aware anyway. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be talking about legal persons aka Legal personality. As that article is already linked from person, this article here is unreferenced and the title is simply a plural, I'd redirect to person and refer the author to the artcile on the legal concept. If that is not what they have in mined, they may as well want to start from scratch with a different title.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
Redirect, or rather, restore the redirect. We already cover legal persons, and this text is too confusing to make sense of, and as such can't really be edited to improve it, though in fairness the author's English is going to be better than my Latvian: ....an object of economic motivation, mentioned in the Latvian legislation. In the Satversme he has a name Person with a constitutional code XPV. This construction borrowed from the constitution of the Weimar Republic. The reference given would appear to be the source text of the Constitution of Latvia. I wish I knew more Latvian; it's the sort of language that looks like you ought to be able to decipher it, if you just concentrated harder. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect back to Person. Not sure that this is appropriate for Afd since it's more of a content dispute. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a surname page: Gordon Persons, Wilton Persons, Henry Persons, Peter Persons, and maybe Alice N. Persons would all Personally thank you if they could. Redirect to Person (disambiguation). I've added these Persons to that page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Person (disambiguation). This article is not effectively communicating anything, possibly due to a language barrier. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if we could have the old page history back, as well. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Person - plural to singular, link to primary topic. PamD (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... "Operator, I'd like to make a "Persons" to "Person" call please..." I don't see any reason not to make this a redirect, the same way that a lot of commonly used plurals get done-- i.e., you can write dogs instead of dogs without getting a redlink. Mandsford 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no any direct links between a person and Persons, moreover it's a very important concept from the Constitution; there is no original research, the article is sourced and contains useful additional information. I spent a lot of time to write it. Denis Tarasov (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced only to the constitutions themselves but has no secondary sources that would among other things help to understand the concept as you intend it and understand the appropriate English term to be used. Could you please review once more above discussion and the 'legal persons' as described in the article Legal personality?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally incoherent. Dew Kane (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2010 (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.