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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Radiant Earth Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(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

• 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.

• 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
  • Duplicate !vote struck. Do not place more than one bolded !vote in any discussion. BD2412 T 00:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Basically copied from their About page, lacking in secondary sourcing (the Nachmany and Alemohammad item is both primary and not peer-reviewed; the Lindgren item has only one sentence about this specific organization; only the Zenke da Cruz et al. paper appears substantial, and one source isn't enough). XOR'easter ( talk) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Why are almost all of the sources from publications or media outside of the US? I would expect a US-based foundation doing important work would have some media coverage state-side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10sne1 ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: I see indications this should have WP:SIGCOV, but I don't see anything that meets it. Draft seems like a good choice for this one, with the disclaimer that if it is moved back without WP:SIGCOV it should be deleted. This will also give time to improve/expand/clean up the article.   //  Timothy ::  talk  01:06, 6 November 2020 (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.