Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

:{{la|Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helmholtz_Centre_for_Environmental_Research Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research}})

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

---

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. It's just a promo piece for the centre. Even if this organisation is actually notable, the article itself is so hopelessly beyond repair the only sensible option is to nuke it from orbit. QueenCake (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. The center probably does rate an article, but the only alternative I see to deleting is reducing what's there to a stub and starting over - there's not much (read any) neutral, easily verifiable content there at the moment. Lbarquist (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Some of their work was recently reported in [http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9761/20141021/artificial-lighting-helps-blackbirds-seize-night-lose-sleep.htm Nature World News]. PubMed has 500 hits (suggesting 500 publications by their staff), Google Books returns 300 books when searching for the quoted name. The organization is 100% funded by German government agencies, and the likelihood that nobody has written about this is zero. This uncited and largely unencyclopedic article is about a notable subject, and should therefore not be deleted. If Joshljosh, who expanded it a couple of years ago, isn't available any longer to explain or find sources, then I think it would take less than five minutes to knock it back into an encyclopedia article. Most of the "Research" section would be simplified into just a couple of sentences, but the rest is probably okay. We'd end up with something not too different from the version of the article currently at the Italian Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per WhatamIdoing. The two "delete" votes above don't make sense: they both acknowledge notability of the topic, which is all that we need to determine. --doncram 18:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, The UFZ is a well known research organization with about 1,100 employees funded mainly by the Federal German Government. The research is highly recognized throughout the scientific community. Still, I am going to delete the more general research section because it is to general and doesn´t fit in an encyclopedic article. --Joshljosh

: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.