Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micropoint

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 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Micropoint

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

No claim to notability and no reliable sources can be found. KingAndGod 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Waterco4 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the more comprehensive French Wikipedia article here has references that demonstrate notability and that article can be used to improve the English version Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the French Wikipedia article pass the GNG. KingAndGod 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While not an area I am familiar with, given this is a poorly attended AFD and I read French, I took a look at the sourcing in the French wikipedia article. Two of the sources wouldn't load for me, but otherwise *collectively* they didn't pass our en.wp standards for an article. I wouldn't go as far as KingAndGod and say *none* of the sources are relevant to GNG, but taken collectively we do need multiple reliable independent sources that are more than passing mentions and I am not seeing that. Martinp (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2018 (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.