Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Forum for Geography and Statistics (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Geostatistics.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

European Forum for Geography and Statistics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization. There were no arguments in the first AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - No news worthy articles about the organization. I'm calling out WP:SPAM on this one because of the links. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable professional network, observer status at UN:GGIM and Eurostat. Unique international cooperation at international level. - Vilnib (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Geostatistics where it is mentioned. Searches showed that this organization exists, it is part of GEOSTAT 2, and is associated with the UN through UN:GGIM. I was unable to find multiple in depth independent reliable sources for this organization, hence it seems to fail notability thresholds. But basic facts are verifiable and as one of the few scientific organisations devoted to geostatistics, it is worth mentioning in the org section of Geostatistics. The full title and EFGS are plausible search terms, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * redirect as above. No evidence it is notable, but a redirect better serves readers and leaves open the possibility of recreating it if proper sources are found.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:43, 3 July 2016 (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.