Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science Barge

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. Consensus here is for the article to be retained, and that the topic is notable per the availability of reliable sources that cover it. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science Barge

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

A related promotional article to the one above. I think this might just be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while some of it may need to be re-written, there's plenty of coverage via a google news search. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are some links that show up in a Google news search. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the amount of coverage, though I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT solution for the reasons outlined by DGG. Needs work. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definite keep, there is plenty of reliable sourcing for this article and the attention it has received merits it due to WP:GNG. The goal section and others could be reworked to not include any original research or weaseling (not to mention adding some depth to the sections), and even in this stage those seem fairly minor in scale compared to the size of the article. Surely, deletion is out of the discussion in this case. Judicatus | Talk 08:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Made a few minor changes to article lead. Judicatus | Talk 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable per a simple Google News search. WP:TNT is an essay that isn't even in line with policy. SL93 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, more just a generic push for a clean-up than anything else. I still support keeping it. Stalwart111 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per dusti (talk · contribs) (even through some of those links are dead) and a bop on the head for DGG (talk · contribs) for bringing a flawed but clearly notable article to AfD. ~KvnG 00:24, 5 August 2013 (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.