Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia


 * 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 all. I would, however, be open to individual nominations of the related articles for deletion. Onetwo three... 06:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unless we take all national-level government agencies to be notable (a position I acknowledge but don't share), then these are good candidates for deletion. Never mind the poor writing style, the WP:ENGLISH issues and, given the bureaucratese, possible copyright violations (at any rate, this is a direct copy of this). What's important is the lack of much of an attempt to even assert notability, the utter lack of references, and the lack of third-party, independent sources that might help in establishing notability. Biruitorul Talk 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - these are important government agencies. When searching under their correct titles (the lead article had a typo in the heading for example) there are in fact plenty of sources. I would add that I think that this deletion discussion is premature; experience shows that significant government bodies are likely to have sources and the better way forward would have been to tagged the pages for improvement and given them time to be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know they're important? More to the point, do we really want to keep around probable copyvios (the first one certainly is) spat out in atrocious grammar by a machine translator until the mythical "expansion" happens "with time"? There's something to be said for not looking like a junkyard for extended intervals. Granted, I don't exclude out of hand the possibility of improvement (or, before that, of notability being shown), but it seems slight at the moment. - Biruitorul Talk 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you consider any meet the criteria of CSD:G12 then tag them accordingly. TerriersFan (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the first article; nominate the others separately. They are of very different degrees of notability first level government bodies in all countries are notable, and I think the Secretaria... is one of them. The second,a research branch of the air Force, is probably not. The others may vary--we'd need to look individually. DGG (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the user did also create Ministry of National Defence (Ecuador), but that's obviously notable. The Secretaria may or may not be in that category, but given it's a copyvio, should be speedied. - Biruitorul Talk 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all I don't yet see how any of these articles meet the notability standards, and they also seem to part with WP:NOT. I don't see how gvt agencies (if these are really institutions on that level) are supposed to be inherently notable, particularly in the case of Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos (?!). Now, if anyone really pines for them once they're gone, let them restart them from proper sources - they're gonna have to either way, since the existing texts amount to horridly unintelligible crap, and since the article titles are probably the wrong ones. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia--This is the top-science agency in Ecuador responsible for government policy and plenty of sources are available to establish notability, 1. -- J mundo 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all Definitely. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need a reason. - Biruitorul Talk 23:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all to Spainsh Wikipedia per WP:ENGLISH. The Junk Police (reports|works) 06:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGLISH is not a valid reason for transwikiing or deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any government agency in a country whose population is measured in millions rather than thousands will almost certainly turn out to be notable. In this case notability is demonstrated by these books and these news articles. WP:ENGLISH can only serve as a reason to possibly move the article to another title, not to delete it, and certainly not to transwiki as the article is written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 16 May 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.