Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Academy of Sciences


 * 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. I think XOR'easter's comment just about sums up the discussion, and in the end only one editor thinks we have enough sources for an article.  Sandstein  06:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

European Academy of Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be nominated for deletion. Not notable. The only notability seems to be the article published in Nature, which suggests that this organization was a hoax. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/419865a Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019nomos (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article in Nature, though unflattering, would seem to be in-depth reliable coverage. It's from 2002, but a note at the end makes clear that the "Italian group using the same name" mentioned in our article is the same as this group itself. On the other hand, if kept, the article should focus on what reliable sources say about this group (mostly, its dubious nature) rather than trusting anything the group says about itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep sources exist. Epstein has found one. Nature. WP:ATD. Wm335td (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Sources should be multiple and coverage should be significant. WP:ORG says: "An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." nomos2019 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless more recent and sufficiently independent sources turn up. This appears to have been a scam at the time of its founding in 1999–2003 (depending on which date you take as the real start), according to the Nature story. More recently this article appears to take them more seriously, but I'm not sure how involved its author is with the academy, and it can't really be called in-depth (it's mostly about a chemist who won an award). I think in a case like this, a larger than borderline amount of coverage is necessary to get a clear picture of how this organization has been received, but instead we have a smaller than borderline amount. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete essentially following David Eppstein's reasoning. More independent sources needed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an awkward case. Sifting mentions of it out from among those of organizations with very similar names is a real pain (and I suspect that some of the inbound links to this article should actually point elsewhere, e.g., the one in Sir Michael Berry's page looks chronologically impossible). The organization looks sketchy in the extreme, and so we would be doing the academic community good by documenting that, but the coverage is so thin it would be very difficult to write a reasonable article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (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.