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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Hindsight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

There are plenty of scholar and book sources about "Project Hindsight", but they are about a '60s military research project, not astrology. Nothing suggests to me that this astrology project is sufficiently notable to get a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - you seem to have got lost in references to the other use of the term. Here's a link to a recent scholarly assesment of the influence of the project in a book published by Springer. See this Google Books check, which shows that there are a great many literary references to Project Hindsight from independent works. Also this and this - which shows the term needs independent reference from that of its main translator, Robert Schmidt. In addition, there are plenty of other WP pages linking to this term. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual source you have shown, [1] only gives a passing one line mention. The list of links is just some external links added to articles, I'm not sure what you propose that shows. The list of books from google you show also only give passing mentions. Note the requirements of WP:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The kind of trivial mentions we see in these links do not allow us to write a properly sourced article. Where does the text of the current article come from, if not from the organization's own website? If this is the case then we should not have an article about this topic. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Upon a search, once you sieve out the material about the military project, what's left is not close to reliable sources and I was unable to find anything beyond the level of the single line in the book noted above. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking indepth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (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.