Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euratlas History Maps


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Euratlas History Maps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEB and fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Euratlas is cited as a source in quite a few google-scholar and google-books hits. I believe their historical map data is RS (or regarded by some as such).Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi! It's not true that this page fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. History mapping does not receive attention like a nationwide sports competition! As Notability for Webs says (quote) "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". In the history field, Euratlas represents the digital enterprise that sums up many years of research and paper/print publications (mainly Atlases). It is just so important. Considering only the name of the company, which is a compound noun, not included in the dictionary, google says over 100.000 results. That, in the history field is notable, indeed.

There are so many sources online citing Euratlas. As Notability for Webs says(quote) "the individual web content has received [...] attention from independent sources" and also "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article". Maybe more sources should be added, specially in German and French. But the sources already exist, indeed, so it is a notable subject. Many blogs and reviews exist, including university (public!) endorsement. All independently and in many, many languages.

Are the Universities of Virginia, Duke and Stamford not reliable sources? Is the AU Library Knowledgebase not a reliable source? Please, explain yourself on that. Check (quite huge) traffic analytics https://www.similarweb.com/website/euratlas.net Comte arnau(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject isn't notable, per nom. Comte arnau wants us to believe we need an article about this because the subject " is just so important" and Icewhiz claims WP:GHITS. Both are discredited arguments. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming GHITS. I am saying, following a google scholar and books search - that these maps are cited by many. Not the website, the map data.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a good argument for notability based on the citations of Euratlas in tons of scholarly works. Wikipedia doesn't have a specific notability guideline for non-book reference works, but it makes sense to me that notability for a reference work should take into account how widely cited it is, since WP:BOOKCRIT and other specialized notability guidelines include criteria about impact in their field. Euratlas functions in a similar way to an academic book, and the criteria at WP:TEXTBOOKS even specifically includes "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" and "how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area".
 * There are also some academic works that discuss Euratlas a bit as part of the work, which could be used as sources for the article:, , . Here's also a post about it on the University of Chicago Visual Resources Center site. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2017 (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.