Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands On Science Outreach, Inc.

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. but stubed for rewriting based on non-promotional tone and reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands On Science Outreach, Inc.

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

Highly promotional article with notability issues unresolved for over six years. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CORP. 'HOSO' fails to meet the depth of coverage/notability requirements. Also, the article is clearly written in a promotional tone, reads like an advertisement basically. The related article Project NEXUS should probably also go for the same reasons. Valiant Patriot (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weakly consider keep&cleanup because there might be something in there of use to somebody researching how to develop informal/hands on science education. (I'm more forgiving to allow a quasi-notable educational non-profit slide on notability technicality, than say a self-promoting business tycoon). I don't entirely agree with the arguments above, that it should be deleted because it has a promotional tone. Tone of an article is better fixed through editing, than deletion. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While I agree the article is in deplorable condition, and likely written by connected individuals, there are several excellent sources, among them this 1995 Baltimore Sun article and extensive coverage in several books: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Number 3 is actually written by the program creator, and #6 is a mere directory listing, but the others easily meet the standard for significant coverage in independent reliable sources (in many of these cases academic sources). BusterD (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a delete outcome is preferred by this process, I'd be happy to develop this page after userfication to my userspace. BusterD (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would vote to delete the current article, but I think including BusterD's sources would be enough to save this article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given BusterD's sources, but would BusterD be will to do a competent rewrite on the article? Should it be stubified for the time being? --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm on a work-related wikibreak right now, and won't be able to contribute meaningfully until just after October 10. However, I'd be happy if the result of a keep outcome here was to stubify the pagespace and allow someone (possibly myself) to rebuild it from scratch using reliable sources. I believe there's a bit of useful information in page history as well. I'm not a connected individual, but I have a fondness for and long familiarity with discovery science techniques and science-based museums. I should add that I'm in agreement with User:Valiant Patriot that Project NEXUS has a very similar COI problem. Rather than delete that page however, I urge editors to allow me to look over the extensive related sourcing attached to that bloated pagespace for possible page rescue. BusterD (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2014 (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.