Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central American Historical Institute


 * 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  07:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Central American Historical Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG The books used sounds nice, but for instance the books mentioned as source 3 and 4 are nothing more than passing mentions. The Banner talk 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Google scholar has numerous citations of research performed at this institution . The citations are sufficient to pass WP:NORG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * those are just the results of a search in scholar for "IHCA", and consist mostly of bibliography entries or passing mentions. Do you by chance have any in-depth coverage?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete promotional concoction of user Jzsj. The main issue here is that existing sources are just passing mentions or very minimal, so it it is not possible to extract any information on the institute that is longer than a few words without doing WP:OR as Jzsj did.  I removed no less than three 'sources' that were actually just bibliography entries used to concoct some good old original research. The extant sources in search do not support notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in the article fail to demonstrate notability as described above by ThatMontrealIP, so it fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The article also has issues with being a WP:SYNTH of original research by the articles creator and is highly promotional of this organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.