Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiant Earth Foundation

Radiant Earth Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not covered in reliable sources Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking sources and notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some reliable sources on Google books [1] [2] I don't think these are enough for WP:NORG but it seems like there should be more sources, maybe they aren't accessible? Spudlace (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the remark that the article was lacking sources. I have added several secondary sources spanning from 2018 to 2020, including the Book "Satellites Missions and Technologies" mentioned in the comment above, which all hint to notability in the field of "earth observation and artificial intelligence". All in all, I now see significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. These sources include Reuters, the American Geophysical Union, the British Publisher "IntechOpen" and the Tanzanian newspaper "Tanzania News Gazette".balthas (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The above "Keep" !vote (also the creator) states "I now see significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.", and I don't quite see all that. The criteria is more than a vague "has sourcing". I do see some notability and the possibility of more out there although A search did not turn up anything extra.

The Paola Totaro articles gives WP:SIGCOV,
The "Radiant Earth Annual Report 2019" (PDF). 2020. is self-published and does not advance notability,
Demyanov, Vladislav: I could not check,
data4sdgs: is a partner so not independent,
Nachmany, Yoni: I could not check,
Tanzania News Gazette (about section) states: "This news website has provided the useful platform for the owners of different businesses in order to get their businesses recognized internationally.", so is more of a press release.
Ballantynwe, A: gives one paragraph concerning the subject.
"About – Radiant Earth Foundation" is self-published so again, does not advance notability.

With only one good verifiable reference I am struggling to find the nudge that presents more than bare notability.

As a note: The use of a source in the "External links" and as a reference is not proper.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the remarks above and the point that notability needs to be backed by more secondary sources. I have researched and added two more secondary sources. One is a book chapter from 2020 from a book on "Space Fostering African Societies" published by the global science publisher "Springer Science", another secondary source is extensively covering the work of radiant earth from a scientific and independent point of view (Zenke da Cruz Radiant Earth Platform). Also I have added the tag indicating that the article needs attention from an expert in Computer Science. Cheers balthas (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]