Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronet

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 Keep (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronet

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

DePRODded without reason given. European Union-funded project. Lots of participants, total budget of a couple of millions of Euros (not all that much in astronomy): the usual Europroject puffery. In all, a non-notable research project that existed for only 4 years; no independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting GNG, see: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and more. WP:NOTABILITY explicitally says :Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The references added above mostly seem to be recycled public relations blurbs giving statements of virtuous intent. Has the organization actually achieved anything that would make it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- They seem to have developed a strategic roadmap for European astronomy research, with a follow-up contract awarded in 2011.[17] But that is irrelevant with regards to satisfying WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG per:

"Astronomers unveil wish list." Nature: International weekly journal of science.
(in French) "Astronomy: the European Astronet present a 20-year plan." Le Point.
(in German) "Himmlische Visionen für das All - Astronomen diskutieren die Großprojekte der." Germany Radio.
(in Portuguese) "As the stars were born?." Expresso.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2012 (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.