Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is unsourced, unreferenced, not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia, and feels it was pulled off of a website which would imply a violation of copyright. I can't find a single news source that covers this subject. A quick google search for this comes from a website that is operated by the United States Department of Commerce. It is the first result under the banner of the cached link to this article here on Wikipedia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The page is certainly a copyright violation: it is copied from an
  WP:G12), with no prejudice to recreation if appropriate sources are found. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't forget the Russians. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @BenKuykendall: The National Science Foundation is a United States government agency and their work is public domain, so if the content is copied from that source then it may not be a copyright violation. If we have copyright-compatible expert source material, we can copy it into Wikipedia through processes such as Wikipedia:Journal to wiki publication. However in this case, we have no citations to sources, and there is not much attempt to demonstrate that this concept meets our standard at WP:Notability. I say delete because of that, and not because of an obvious copyright violation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here is the description of the project on a website. This is not nearly enough to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2021 (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.