Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CliSAP

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. Nakon 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CliSAP

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

Non-notable local association that fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikicology, thanks for your feedback on the article about CliSAP. I understood that the relevance of this research association hasn't been stated and proved clear enough. Sorry for that. I tried to make it more visible by reorganizing the sources. In general, I can imagine that outside Germany a research joint venture on climate change does not seem to be a big deal. But in fact, the excellence initiative of the German Government has been investing a lot of money since the research funding project startet in 2005. As a result of a nation-wide competition there are Grad Schools, Universities as a whole for realizing innovative future concepts and Clusters of Excellence funded. Altogether 4.6 billion Euros are spent. To me, this looks relevant. What do you think? Every chosen project has already proved to be relevant in that context. As it is all about research within international networks, and the language of research is English, I definately do see the relevance in having an article about CliSAP in the English-speaking WP. Another thing I'd like to point out is that climate change is a key challenge of humanity and that information about research being done on that topic should be present in the web, and especially here. I would be happy to continue the discussion here. And I am grateful for help in improving the article. KlimaCampus (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, which I read as meaning that an article about climate change in the main press that includes ", scientist XXX from Clisap said", such as this one, is not enough at all. I could find no independant sources (ie, that are not publishing a press release). Tigraan (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major interuniversity center of several major German institutions. I'm included to treat this in a separate article, since there's n single place to merge to. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG?. Let me also point out that the subject of the article is a research association. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Here are the sources in the "External links" section of the article:
The third-to-last source provides nontrivial coverage of the subject (based on searching for "CliSAP"). I am not sure about the depth of coverage in the last two sources because I cannot read the language.
Per DGG, since this is a major university center of several major German institutions and there is no single place to merge, I'd prefer keeping the article over deletion.
Cunard (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2015 (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.