Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Institute of Food Technologies


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

German Institute of Food Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, not a single reliable third-party source. Nothing beyond trivial passing mentions found via Google News. PROD was removed by without improvement or explanation, so I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There isn’t a huge amount I found, but a few things of some use: DiL is the lead partner in this EU research project, there’s a bunch of papers from DiL at Researchgate, sector press coverage here and third party coverage here. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The references listed at de:Deutsches Institut für Lebensmitteltechnik may be worth adding. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the "third-party coverage" mentioned by Mccapra is a political party's press release, not a reliable source. The German article doesn't cite any reliable third-party sources either. The "sector press coverage" is trivial personnel coverage that does not reach the level of WP:SIGCOV. All it says is, "X and Y retire, the new institute leader is Z" - plus some biographical details about Z that predate his tenure at the institute. Huon (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because the subject is not independently notable. The "German Institute of Food Technologies" is part of the Hochschule Osnabrück or the Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences. The university itself is indeed notable and Wikiworthy but the institute is not. The article in the German Wikipedia contains the following sources:
 * Citations from the subject's own website, either currently live (e.g. here) or archived (e.g. here); dead links such as the one to Wissenschaftliche Kommission Niedersachsen über das DIL (Scientific Commission Lower Saxony on the DIL); more institute sources such as this or this; a dead link to the Jahresabschlussbericht (annual report) (!); citations from the host university's website, e.g. here; a brochure; and so on. For a supposedly notable university-institute the harvest for outside sources is extremely poor. There is nothing to support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nowhere can I see any evidence that it's actually part of the Hochschule Osnabrück. It certainly co-operates with it, but it appears to be an independent institution and a notable enough one for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The institute cooperates with Hochschule Osnabrück, through offering a Bachelor's in Industrial Engineering Food Production, and is not part of it. My mistaken reading of the German Wikipedia article. Apologies. This changes nothing as to the subject of the contested article. Where exactly are the sources, Necrothesp, that support its "independent notability" -apart from the fact that it exists? -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an odd one. While I believe that the institute exists, it's a challenge to find documentation to support notability. The page itself looks like 99% WP:PROMO and WP:BROCHURE with the other 1% about foundation stones. The references are internal. This article is the sole contribution from the user that created it. There are two other language pages (German, Dutch) and they're essentially identical brochures. The Dutch page was created by the same user, who did not create the German page but did edit it (very similar user name, only edits). All edits were contemporaneous. It seems like multiple edits on the German page were rolled back for reasons such as advertising or commercialism or lack of WP:NPOV. ogenstein (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2019 (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.