Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egon H. Einoder

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. JForget 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egon H. Einoder[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V. Lack of independent sources, a copy of one of the author's papers is listed by Google Scholar but there's no independent sources available via Gweb/Gnews search, meeting WP:ACADEMIC seems unlikely. A couple passing mentions in references in Gbooks but nothing non-trivial that I was able to find. Unreferenced (save for self-pub'd website) for about a year. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A confused and unsalvageable jumble of mostly unverifiable information and WP:OR. I tried to do some basic google-searching (GNews,GScholar,GBooks) but found almost nothing of relevance. Nothing verifiable to show passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO and very little verifiable info of any kind. In the unlikely event that the subject is notable, the text looks unsalvageable to me anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A page not really passing any quality standards, and anyway has a great lack of sources and citations. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hints in some of the assertions in the article and in the (Spanish language) Google news archive hits for him that he might (barely) pass notability. But as it stands the article is an unsalvageable mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 28 August 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.