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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native Scientist[edit]

Native Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nonprofit organization lacking notability. There are several references on the page but they are all either primary, non-independent, or only have passing mentions of the organization. Fails WP:NORG. Citrivescence (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way are these many references not independent? Rathfelder (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rathfelder: A quick glance at the reference list shows that numbers 6-15 are all non-independent in that they are either produced by the organization itself or organizations that have partnerships with Native Scientist, e.g. this piece by King's College London describing an event held on their campus. Can you look at the reference list and point to two specific references that have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources? Citrivescence (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Kings College is sufficiently well established that if it publishes stuff about it, even if held on its campus, that counts as independent. The fact that there is a relationship with a whole load of other substantial organisations does not compromise their independent status. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rathfelder: That is not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:IS. If you can find two independent sources that fulfill the other notability criteria, please share them. Citrivescence (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it has significant substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as here which is not affiliated, and another example is this one which also is not affiliated, so the subject deserves to have an article in the encyclopedia, and concerns over advertising tone can be addressed with editing for neutrality, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic". I'm quite sure these universities have no vested interest in this topic. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the author of the page considered for deletion. I understand the concerns raised about its notability, given the apparent lack of independent sources. I use "apparent" because it remains unclear to me what independent sources really are, as it seems that people commenting above are not in agreement. If I understand correctly, pieces of news in general media on a specific organisation would count as independent sources for notability. There are several of these sources for Native Scientist in the Portuguese media, for example, and I can provide them if you think that would be suitable. I haven't done so before (in the page) because English-speaking readers would not necessarily understand the content of the sources. I still believe that Native Scientist would deserve an entry in the English wikipedia for several reasons: (1) this project was born in England, (2) the operating language of this organisation is English, (3) many of its activities take place across the UK, (4) this organization has a scientific purpose and the scientific community uses English as their communication language.Rafaelgalupa (talk) 00:17, 21 January 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.