Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psephos

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. ✗plicit 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psephos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article unfortunately doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG I was unable to find anything in a google search. A few results came back in a Google Scholar search but all the result I could see were onty citations and therefore did not provide significant coverage on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Politics, Internet, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this non-notable archive of election results, it is mentioned in one source (duke University, seems to be a fragment of ??). In the EL's there is a link to the archive creator's personal blog. Cannot find enough to establish notability per GNG. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this is used as a reference in at least 300 Wikipedia articles. [1] and [2] are library directories that refer to this source. The sourcing isn't as good as I would like, but my !vote is keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Psephos is only a marginally reliable source, due to Carr being a subject matter expert. I don't think it being used as a reference on Wikipedia is a good argument for keep, and neither is the fact that Psephos is in several libraries. Steelkamp (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was looking to see if there might be a case that Adam Carr is notable. But all I found was Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Adam_Carr. After further review, there isn't enough here for a keep vote. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable entity on its own, with no reliable sources. The editing spirit (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Let the article incubate in draftspaceEEverest 8848 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete per a lack of WP:RS and a failure of WP:GNG. SirMemeGod  22:14, 18 September 2024 (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.