Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronet (2nd nomination)

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Astronet]]=

AfDs for this article:

:{{la|1=Astronet}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Astronet}})

Notability/importance still seems low. No useful references to support most content on this page. Redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep: a cursory check for references turned up a number of papers on the subject. It appears sufficiently notable, and I'm not clear that WP:BEFORE was followed. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The article now cites multiple sources including Science (2007, 2009, 2011) and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (2013), all WP:RS, offering WP:SIGCOV of Astronet and satisfying WP:GNG. A JSTOR search provides good coverage, and as another editor has already noted, it's unclear whether WP:BEFORE was properly followed. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Of course this is a keep please Best Regards (CP) 21:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Over the past few days, I’ve added 8–9 WP:RS sources from Science, Nature, the Royal Astronomical Society, Springer, and others. Promotional and unsourced content has been removed. The article is no longer a stub supported by only 1 or 2 sources and it now clearly passes WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep per the recently made improvements and a good state of sources. Such initiatives may have usually sources not easily searchable online. - Norlk (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment: for those who contributed, nice work on building it up. It's encouraging to see. Thanks! Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

: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.