Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Globes Museum


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtual Globes Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 *  weakest of keeps, I'm really hoping some Hungarian sources surface. It looks like the scientific community took interest, but I haven't seen much outside primary papers in English. Still looking.      StarM 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to straight keep per what Oakshade found.      StarM 18:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - In addition to the English language sources in the article, the book True-3D in Cartography and abstract Acta Geodaetica Et Geophysica Hungarica go into detail of it.Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The two sources that Oakshade provided look legitimate to me. There are also references currently provided in the article. I'm going to go ahead and admit that I don't know whether The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences is a notable and reliable source in the field, but per AGF, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I know that burden of proof is on keep, but that proof has already been met by the four academic sources referenced in the article; I think at this point the burden shifts to the nominator, who is rejecting those sources without a single word of explanation about why they are inadequate. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The sources found by Oakshade, combined with the other sources referenced in the article, make the subject a clear GNG pass. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 00:07, 9 June 2020 (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.