Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probert Encyclopaedia

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. ✗plicit 14:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probert Encyclopaedia

[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)

Cannot find much, if anything on this. Not opposed to merging or redirecting somewhere given how old the article is. If what is described in the article is true I am surprised this isn't notable, or that I cannot find mention of it somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2025 (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.