Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists for Future

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists for Future

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meets WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good independent coverage is provided as references... I don't see what the nominator's issues are with the sourcing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't be bothered to do a {{source assess table}} but references 2, 4, 5 and 8 appear to meet WP:42. SITH (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't read the German to fully assess the refs, but I do see that many of the refs are primary (to papers and statements from the group or group's members) and #9-18 are in support of the scientific facts, not the Scientist for Future initiative. The few remaining may be significant coverage or could be press releases. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Noting nominator does not seem certain of their rationale. I previously tagged this page for notability and discussed on the talk page, as there are limited English language sources available. However, Korrigi provided more evidence of coverage in German language media sources. This satisfied my concerns and I removed the notability tag. I agree with Schazjmd that a lot of the sources relate to the climate change facts and not actually the group, a content issue that requires resolution on the talk page, but I think the German media sources provided do satisfy GNG.Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more than enough sources to fulfill WP:GNG, and many more could be brought by if necessary. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.