Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantykron


 * 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, as the nominator withdrew. Airplaneman talk 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantykron

 * – ( View AfD

View log •  AfD statistics)

Notability not really established through multiple independent sources. We have a couple of press releases and a self-published review, but that's about it. Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, but I believe I can address your concerns. I can provide better references to established independent radio and television, in Romania and international, showing significant coverage Atlantykron at one of the oldest and most successful summer youth academies run by the United Nations in Eastern Europe.

I'd kindly ask for just a few days to pull and add these references for your review and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added third party recognition and coverage of the event from the United Nations, The Romanian Journal, and the Romanian Telegraph.

The number of the cited distinguished international guests is significant. The participation of these guests, many recognized as notable by wikipedia, is documented in more than 30,000 photos and nearly 100 videos in the cited Academy archives available via the program's official website.

Can these archives be used in a better way to help meet the Wikipedia notability requirements? Or should we continue to add more 3rd party media coverage of the academy? thanks for you consiteration. Sciencefrontiers42 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't claim any proficiency in Romanian, but from my knowledge of other Romance languages it looks to me as if these sources added to the article since nomination are independent and reliable and provide significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, withdrawn - those sources are indeed independent and in-depth. I do hope the article will draw more heavily on them and sound less promotional, but that's a matter for the editing process. - Biruitorul Talk 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (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.