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 delete. Sandstein 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Studies Foundation

[edit]

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

Claim of notability (top 10 meteorite collections), but good faith google search is not turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability other than a couple of mentions in their local paper. PROD was removed by article creator, but no additional sources were added to show meeting notability, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A big claim in an otherwise terrible article. I've not had a chance to look at this closely, but a quick search turned up "Status of the James M. DuPont Meteorite Collection 1995 to 2004". Bibcode:2005M&PSA..40.5008S. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help) which does seem to back it up. Perhaps searching by the name of the collection ('DuPont Meteorite Collection') would be more fruitful? However, maybe that would suggest that we should have an article on the collection itself, rather than the museum which currently houses it. Modest Genius ^talk 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Modest Genius. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no independent, third-party sources for this org. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2016 (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.