Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naktuinbouw


 * 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. Northamerica1000's comments here and edits to the article provide sufficient evidence of notability. The primary concerns raised by those advocating deletion can be addressed through the editorial process. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Naktuinbouw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

selfpromo / promo / not sourced conform WP:RS / doubtful notability The Banner talk 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary better improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – See WP:NEXIST, and check out available literature using the Google Scholar and other links in the Find sources template atop this discussion, and also the literature I have listed below. North America1000 07:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)



 References
 * Keep and copy edit (some of which I have begun). The organization passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. See also WP:NEXIST. North America1000 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Naktuinbouw experimenteert met nieuwe eiwitgewassen" (English title: "Naktuinbouw experimenting with new protein crops"). Bioprocess Engineering. pp. 14-17.
 * Pathogen Indexing Technologies. Academic Press. pp. 146–147.
 * Flower Tech. Elsevier International Business Information. Volumes 1-3.
 * "Nieuwe editie ’Naamlijst vaste planten’ bevat 3.500 nieuwe namen". Bloemisterij.
 * "European horticulture summit branded a success". Horticulture Week.
 * Flower Tech. Elsevier International Business Information. Volumes 1-3.
 * "Nieuwe editie ’Naamlijst vaste planten’ bevat 3.500 nieuwe namen". Bloemisterij.
 * "European horticulture summit branded a success". Horticulture Week.
 * Delete - I agree with NA that the organization may pass WP:ORGDEPTH, but I would say delete as per WP:DEL4. From its opening statement "centre for expertise", to its closing section: "Fascinating facts", it is simply a promotional brochure for the organization. I think this is a clear case of WP:TNT. If someone wants to take it on as a project to develop, I would have no issue with it being draftified/userfied. But we really shouldn't be having promo brochures on Wikipedia.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article still needs work, but this research institute and organization is quite notable and respected. For starters, per the article it is a partner with the Ministry of Economic Affairs (link) of the government of the Netherlands. I've performed some copy edits to the article; I don't view a TNT deletion as necessary at this point; cleanup and copy editing would be sufficient. North America1000 13:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. This is a government mandated inspection agency (i.e. autonomous public authority) for the Netherlands with even a quick reading of their about page and other sources.. It has no problem meeting notability standards. Similar agencies that do this work in the US for instance (and less confusing English) include the Plant Variety Protection Office and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Arguments for deletion including advertising, spam, etc. relevant to companies appears to be mistakenly applied above.


 * What I'm seeing in the article itself appears to be language typical of a non-English speaker that just sounds odd and promotional to native speakers. It only needs a rewrite to fix that problem in tone, which again isn't a notability problem warranting consideration here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 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.