Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eson xorgol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 14:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eson xorgol[edit]

Eson xorgol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I did find some mention in [1] but snippet view prevents me from confirming it is significant and I am not seeing anything else. Please also note [2] which could be an indication of either interesting trivia - or a partial racist hoax." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with copy-paste rationale. Let's discuss here, then. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator mentions Google Scholar, so I am rather surprised that it does not show him doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.026 and [3], which at least need refutation to not be regarded as reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 4 March 2021 (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.