Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardus Everardus Tros

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Everardus Tros[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, never nominated an article before, so apologies if I'm missing anything out here. Anyway, the subject does not appear to be in any way notable. The only significant references to him are on his own website and a handful of blog postings. As per his website, his philosophical output seems to be complete woo, so I think it is extremely unlikely he has received significant coverage in any reliable sources. Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, our inclusion criteria for philosophers have very little to do with whether their philosophy is "serious" or "woo" — metaphysical writers can still receive reliable source coverage that analyzes their importance (e.g. Helena Blavatsky), and non-metaphysical philosophers can still fail to receive that. What's determinative here is not so much his subject area, as his complete lack of any sources he didn't write and publish himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that no notice has been taken of this person's work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Independent scholars can be notable but we have no evidence that this one is. There are a few blog posts about him out there but nothing that would count as an independent reliable source by Wikipedia standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of him passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2019 (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.