Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observado.org

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observado.org

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

This article has multiple issues which remained unresolved in the last few years. Most importantly, the notability of the website has not been established. – Editør (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 11:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Editør (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent evidence of notability (see
WP:INTERNET) TheBlueCanoe 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – There are a fair number of cites on Google Scholar, indicating that scientists are using the data. For example, this paper from the Journal of Applied Ecology, and this guide for using the data in the International Waterbird Census. I didn't find an in-depth profile in a newspaper, which I would have preferred, but there were some hits for the smartphone app. Also many blog-type hits from around the world, which don't count for notability but are what you would expect for a "citizen science" site. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Editør (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 16 March 2015 (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.