Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Physics at Singapore, OSP@SG

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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Physics at Singapore, OSP@SG

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

Fails WP:GNG and is unambiguous promotion by User:Lookang. The article has no context; it says the title was started by the Loo Kang and then goes on to mention who the author is. (Note: I'd tagged the article for speedy deletion which was reverted by ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.) Ciridae (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite frankly, your understanding of the standards for unacceptable promotion is grossly deficient, and casts serious doubt on your understanding of deletion criteria generally. Just saying "Fails GNG" without explanation falls far short of an acceptable nomination rationale. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, the second sentence of my explanation covers both the reasons quite completely. Ciridae (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent RS. refs are just PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 1 April 2016 (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.