Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Project (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Discovery Project}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Discovery Project}})

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notable mentions, none of which were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the few deletion nominations in this group that I do not really support. The various component projects taken together are notable; I think the references are basically to them, but a combination article is better. Independent references to some of them [http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jnietstud.1.40.0070],[http://www.erudit.org/revue/memoires/2009/v1/n1/038631ar.html] and especially [http://www.item.ens.fr/index.php?id=484423]. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment As with most of this kind of projects, I agree that some of the results may be notable and can/should be used to improve/source the articles on those topics. In the present case, "Philosource" seems to be a useful source for philosophical works that may otherwise be difficult to find. However, when I search on Google or GS, I don't really see sources that convey notability. Nevertheless, I could live with redirecting the current article to Philosource and re-writing it to focus on this database. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - DGG says it all.-...--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (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.