Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science

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. clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science

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

Article was proposed for deletion with the rationale "Ephemeral project. No independent sources that are actually about this project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG." The proposed deletion was contested posthumously - this is a neutral nomination. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As the original PRODder, no surprise here. The undelete request was wrong, the PROD was not a mistake, I did not think this was a wrestler, as, in fact, the people involved in this project know well. At least, that is what I am being told: User:Ademmen sent me multiple emails protesting this deletion and even asked a colleague of mine (working for the same employer) to call me at my office about this. This colleague told me that the deletion had been the subject of discussion at a recent meeting of the project participants and that people were really upset that their efforts to give this project an Internet presence were being thwarted. Despite all that brouhaha, I still think that this should be deleted as non-notable, not meeting WP:GNG. There are no independent sources. Yes, the project exists. Yes, project participants have published or participated at scientific meetings and mentioned the project in their presentations. This is what scientists do. I have a presentation at an international meeting tomorrow myself and will talk about my own pet project. That's my job and nothing out of the ordinary. If after my talk several independent sources report about my brilliant project (and I know it is brilliant, even if many colleagues don't see that - yet - but wait a few years!) could we start talking about creating an article about it. The same applies here. This is one of a bunch of articles on EU-funded research projects that have been created after some online canvassing (see here for link and some other remarks on this kind of projects. AS an aside, please note that some of the references in this article have nothing whatsoever to do with EDGeS, but are just links to existing desktop grids without any connection to EDGeS. --Crusio (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails WP:V for not having anything independent verify the claims and published. The WP:Cabal operating behind the author is requested to see WP:42. Phearson (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:V. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Synthesis. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A significant proportion of the article is about other initiatives which are more appropriately covered under Volunteer computing, as indeed they are. As for the remainder of this article, it relates to a now expired EU project, by which point any notability should be demonstrated by verifiable 3rd party discussion of outcomes, if such exist. The project is mentioned in the Grid_computing article, but even there carries a Citation Reqd notice. That should be sufficient (subject to suitable sourcing), and the project article is superfluous. AllyD (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2011 (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.