Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange"


 * 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. "Keep" arguments were not policy and guideline based. "Delete" arguments were. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Communiqué "Geochange"

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't quite see notability as demonstrated by independent coverage here. It may be the editor hasn't quite read WP:MOS (Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, Elchin Khalilov, World Organization for Scientific Cooperation provide ample evidence of this), but this seems to fall even below that bar. Biruitorul Talk 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google returns 54 results. I should also add that the article is a copyvio from the official website. Renata (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This forms part of a set of articles about organisations involving many of the same people with very little in the way of independent sources to confirm notability. I'd be happy to see them all at AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication of notability either in the article or in a Google search. The phrase "signed by representatives from following countries" seems to mean simply "people from the following countries filled in the on-line petition", i.e. these people were not representatives of the indicated countries. Nor does it seem that the listed agencies are affiliated with this Communiqué in any official capacity. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that the author has made the necessary changes to the article "The phrase signed by representatives from following kountrius" was changed to "The communique online signed by scientists from following countries"   EIC (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Nothing has been done to address the notability issue.  ttonyb  (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I think the significance of articles considered by independent sources. Links are listed at the end of this paper show the importance of the article. I think that the question of relevance can be removed from the agenda EIC (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I dont agree that the article is the copyvio  from the official website. I  deleted the  text from article  which is copy from official website. - Ismail Valiyev (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Nothing has been done to address the notability issue.  ttonyb  (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - In google have many links about Communique "Geochange" and other organisations. - Daniyel (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Daniyel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – None of the Google hits meet the criteria in WP:RS. Nothing has been done to address the notability issue.   ttonyb  (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability issues. Scientists signing an ePetition does not seem like a terribly important event. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability issues.  ttonyb (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – It is not official a position of these countries. This, simply private position of scientists from the same countries. - Ismail Valiyev (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - In google have many links about Communique "Geochange" and other organisations.--Aydın Çaldıran (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Aydın Çaldıran (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A simple count of google hits does not count. We need reliable sources, actual legitimate media, to cover this. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Qalsın. -- Cekli 8 2 9   (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A "keep" without a valid, policy/guideline/rule-citing reason will be discarded. This is not a simple vote tally. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - many scientific signed communiques are professionals having scientific ranks and scientific degrees of the professor and the doctor of sciences. The most part of these scientists world famous in sphere of sciences about the Earth and other areas of a science. Many scientists are heads of scientific research institutes of national academies of sciences of the different countries, heads of scientific laboratories and geological services and departments, rectors of large Universities. From the signed communiques of scientists pages in English, Russian, German and other versions Wikipedia have a part. Nobody can call into question professional level or a celebrity of these scientists. I ask to pay attention, that it is the communique - not the formal initiative. It is the true democratic initiative around extremely important problem for all mankind. Why about 300 scientists from 78 countries which have huge authority and the importance in the theirs countries have spent time to sign the communique and to give the comments and recommendations? It has very simple explanation. These scientists understand huge importance of the problems considered in the communique for mankind safe development.
 * Many mass-media in which the information on the communique is published are the most known news agencies and newspapers in the countries. For example "Kazakhstan Today" - the largest information system in Kazakhstan. The newspaper "Evening Moscow" - one of the most popular newspapers in Russia. News agencies of other countries also are recognised newspapers. I think, that it is very actual and timely article necessary for Wikipedia. 375geo (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 375geo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * — 375geo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.