Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World At Night (TWAN)


 * 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 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The World At Night (TWAN)

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

No claims of notability. Very little encylopaedic information in the article as it stands. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Please have another look. Recent edits have significantly improved the entry. Thanks for your patience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onenightsky (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the four web pages listed as "sources" one is at The World At Night's own website, and the other three do not mention The World At Night at all. It may be notable, but so far there is no evidence at all that it is. (Incidentally, Onenightsky says "Recent edits have significantly improved the entry". Since all those edits were made by Onenightsky, this is scarcely an objective view!) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Here are a few better references: International Year of Astronomy 2009, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Sky and Telescope. Ditch the acronym from the title if kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keepThe Sky and Telescope link merely mentions that some pictures from The World At Night were included in an exhibition, but the other two look good, so I have added them to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sourcing remains rather weak, but is now adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 31 July 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.