Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes


 * 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. JForget 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This article appears to fail the test for notability per WP:NOTE lacking any reliable sources - most of the material is published by this or closely related organisations. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncertain This  seems to be a major international project  but I am having a surprising degree of trouble finding third party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 December 2009
 * Keep References and files from independent sources of the information have been added.--Ismail Valiyev (talk)12:58, 17 December 2009}}(UTC)
 * Keep This article is about non-governmental organization which was established in 2008. That's why no wonder that Google finds so little results. Wertuose (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep References had been added and the article is not lacking sources.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep References had been added and the article is not lacking sources.-- Cekli 8 2 9   (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2009 (UTCek)
 * Keep I do not see any reason for article deletion.--EIC (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Facts are enough.There is no reason for article deletion.--Wosco (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2009 (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.