Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eik satellite earth station


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Eik satellite earth station

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It exists. But the article is currently sourced with brief mentions and unreliable sources. Sources did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has more than the sufficent ammount of sources, most of them from credited papers written by scholars, professors and proffesionals of their respective fields, and from articles and papers released by "regjeringen" and "romsenter" respectively, who are both branches of the norwegian government. There are sources from the official Inmarsat website, aswell as a well known and covered norwegian news outlet.
 * The "wikimapia.org" source is based on real map data.
 * So in summary the article is well covered with credited sources for every aspect of the article. Williamvennen (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the articles are not about the station, but about the satellites, or the program, or the company. Onel 5969  TT me 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is why the article is not any longer than the information that is avaliable about it. Some of the articles used as sources are about sattelites, and the program, but they have mentions of the Eik Earth station. There is limited information about this, most of it in Norwegian, like the text's from "Romsenter", "Regjeringen", and "Aftenbladet".
 * So most of the english sources have brief mentions of the earth station with coherent information from the text, those sources are used as references in the parts of the text that they back up, that's the reason for the relatively high number of citations for such a short text.
 * And in the General Notability Guidline WP:GNG, there is written; "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material ."
 * So in short, the article has sources backing it up in all parts of the text. Williamvennen (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Beyond confirmation of the place existing, there are no sources discussing it at length. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Complete Fail. Source eval table:
 * No sources for N. No SIGCOV for N. Keep comment only provides their opinions, not IS RS or reasons based in policy and guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per @TimothyBlue –  City Urbanism   🗩   🖉  14:00, 8 April 2023 (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.