Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Science Foundation

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Science Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the notability criteria for such organizations are, but it appears to be similar to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, EPSRC, or other national research councils or funding organizations. Of course, the article needs some work, but I believe it should be kept. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlosser67: Check out WP:ORGDEPTH, which pertains to this organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few references. Some more would be nice to have. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial part of Czech research is funded via GACR. Schlosser67 provided some refrences, I will look for another.Pavlor (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a government supported funding agency can arguably make it inherently notable, but I'm seeing enough from secondary sources listed in the article.[1] Definitely needs more secondary coverage, but it meets the minimum requirement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that there is a very strong presumption of notability for national foundations to promote science and technology. It is far better to improve such articles than try to delete them. This one has been improved, thanks to Schlosser67. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 31 July 2016 (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.