Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MASCOS

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. Sandstein 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MASCOS

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

MASCOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Run-of-the-mill research group with no independent coverage, and seemingly defunct at that. Unsourced since 2008. The page is promotionally written, and much of it appears to be copied from university PR-type material [1][2]. I'd say it would be eligible for speedy deletion as copyright infringement, but it's arguable that "free-content edits overlie the infringement", to an extent, so AfD seems appropriate. PROD was declined without explanation. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. It seems unlikely to me that the group is notable, and I didn't find sources to suggest such on a search. Regardless, little about the current article looks like it can be salvaged. And interest in such salvage may be limited for a centre that appears to have winded down around 2008. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Research groups are almost always non-notable. In any case, written as it is based on the group's own self-promotion and with no sources, it would need a ground-up rewrite even if appropriate sources could be found, a difficult task for something that old, local, and ephemeral. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. The unPRODder seems to make a habit of unexplained unproddings of articles that shouldn't exist. --JBL (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2020 (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.