Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Aeronautics Science Network


 * 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. While it might not be obvious from a count of the votes, the only keeps don't even consider Wikipedia policy in their rationale, so are more personal opinion than policy rationale. As such, weighing the discussion on the actual policies involved, I see a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

European Aeronautics Science Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No third party sources for notability; mostly copied from their website. Mostly information of no interest to any but their own membership  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to assert notability per WP:ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article aimed to present EASN as one of the main European aeronautics-related network representing academia. It is being composed by a number of experts and professionals who represent the voice of European aeronautics universities and seek their participation on innovative research projects. To this end, I consider that the topic is notable and worth writing for in Wikipedia. I have updated the article in an attempt to verify this notability and some of the works realized, as these are referenced from third party sources. Please let me know of your feedback. Myrto Zacharaki (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added keep to your above vote because your statement makes this clear. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - the Network is an administration of the European Union, and the board is elected by the European Union Parliament. The Network is discussed more in government and education reports than the mainstream news, but notability with governments and universities is still notability. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (article creator) & : it's quite possible that the subject can be considered significant and imortant especially from the perception of its members, but neither of your comments are supported by Wikipedia notability criteria which are the ones that matter for inclusion in this encycloedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems like an organization which is notable in a real-world sense, but unfortunately, I cannot find any good sources which meet our criteria for establishing notability.  The opening paragraph also appears to be a copyvio of http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/documents/events/cs2-20130315/C1%20-%20EASN%20Association%20Presentation.pdf.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also,, it's really not appropriate to edit other people's comments like that. Whoever closes the debate will read everything and figure it out for theselves.  Labeling comments with a bold single-word summary is common practice, but it's neither required nor essential, and it's entirely up to the individual editor if they want to do that or not.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2015 (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.