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 topic is a rather large project by the European Union, so it is a bit surprising that notability would be a problem. Yet, if you do a standard web search, nothing GNG-source-worthy pops up; with "europeana" news my first non-EU (i.e. primary) result was a book/play. (If you use europeana without quotation marks, the fuzzy search thinks you meant "european".)
Among the current sources, only two are independent of the subject: [1], [2], and both are about the subproject Europeana 1914-1918. I think the subproject is notable (due to those plus others at the subproject's article), but Europeana itself does not inherit notability, and the sources in question do not devote more than a sentence to the umbrella organization/website.
It turns out that the Europeana website has a press review page. Because of the variety of languages there are some I cannot read, and some I can only partially read (I can speak French/English/German, and get the gist of Romance language texts (Italian/Spanish/Catalan); OTOH I have absolutely no idea what the Russian or Hungarish sources say). Those I did read all fall under either passing mention or PR-wash. Examples:
[3] is a PR-wash, judging by wording such as This vast store of cultural heritage materials from across Europe...; [4] looks like an ad, and the site's "about" page says "I am open to different shapes of partnership or advertisment".
[5] is the closest to GNG-source among the passing mentions. The topic of the article is some art found in the collections (here, Notre-Dame's 3D model). Europeana gets a couple of lines as the financier/host, but nothing that you would not find on Europeana's website, so it is not GNG material.
Though the press review might be incomplete (in particular, if a newspaper clip painted the org in a negative light, it probably would not be here), it is circumstancial evidence of the absence of a source directly talking at length about Europeana.
(Sorry for the long nomination, but I wanted to document exactly why the numerous potential sources are IMO insufficient.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hope this nom is some kind of joke, but fear it may not be. That an organization can persuade a lazy RS to largely repeat its press release in no way prevents this being valid independent coverage in GNG terms - if that were so where on earth would that lead? Equally that an independent source has "nothing that you would not find on Europeana's website" does not disqualify it. The hundreds of items linked on the press page linked to gives plenty of adequate sources, like this, this, thisor this. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That an organization can persuade a lazy RS to largely repeat its press release in no way prevents this being valid independent coverage in GNG terms - if that were so where on earth would that lead? Well, see WP:PRSOURCE.
Regardless, I did miss the actualitte/mymodernmet sources which are plainly not passing mentions, so I withdraw with apologies to all involved. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst the project hasn't helped itself by smothering the world with vast numbers of press releases on its huge range cultural activities and achievements across Europe, it is easy to find any number of WP:RS in books and journals which go into great detail about this ambitious European Cultural Project. Just filter out the Europeana site itself. With 10 million cultural artefacts on its database from international museums and galleries, this feels a bit like AFD-ing the Wikipedia article. That said, I have also worked to remove all the copy vios from one of the three new sources I have just added to the History section. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:01, 14 January 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.