Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker.  But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable.  LotLE × talk  09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies &mdash; not ministries, but agencies &mdash; automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Biruitorul here... I have a serious problem with the idea that all governmental agencies are notable. In fact, I have a problem with the entire concept of inherent notablility. Every article should establish that the specific subject is notable.  Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, more or less per LotLE. I would't go so far as saying all national govt agencies are inherently notable, but I think they're presumptively notable and there's no substantive argument here in opposition. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 5 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.