Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnoMed PredTox

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InnoMed PredTox

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

A group of researchers developed a project, obtained funding for it, did the work, and produced some publications. Nothing out of the ordinary here. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. All of those publications appear to be partners in the project. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provided references clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the references would satisfy GNG, I'd vote keep, too. As far as I can see, they don't, however. --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in either a general or scientific sense. The consortium gets minimal mention at Google News and at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly you define 'minimal'? Because search results you provided (particularly in case of Google Scholar) shows more than 'minimal' results. Beagel (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is used, not just to find publications, but to evaluate their impact in the field - based on how often the publications are cited by others. The highest number of cites for any article mentioning this topic is 13. There is another article with 10 cites and all the others have fewer than 10. This suggests that other scholars are not finding this subject to be worth citing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the criteria to be 'minimal' or not? If 13 mentioning of the single article is minimal, what number is not? Beagel (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF doesn't directly apply here, except by analogy, because we are not talking about a person. WP:PROF is mainly a way of recognizing that important scholars may not always receive significant coverage from reliable third parties. I don't think that a consortium would generally be granted that kind of exemption from WP:GNG, but would be judged more by the standards of, say, WP:ORG. But to answer your question, if I am evaluating someone under WP:PROF, for a scientist I would expect to see multiple articles with at least 50 cites each, to indicate that the person is a leader in his/her field; truly important academicians may have individual articles which are cited by others hundreds of times. (Those are not firm numbers since some fields of scholarship generate far more citations than others.) The number of cites of articles on this subject is minimal by almost any definition. I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important. --MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important.

But this is more far reaching than WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is analogous how we judge academics (see WP:PROF): not by whether they have published and if yes, how much, but on whether their publications have had an impact. --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: the article is nominated for deletion based on WP:GNG and then suddenly we are talking about WP:PROF. If the evaluation is based on WP:PROF, lets say that the reason for deletion is WP:PROF and not WP:GNG (because these are different things and references satisfy WP:GNG). Of course, for this lets make it clear and written in guidelines that WP:PROF applies also to research projects. Please let start the discussion at the talk page of WP:PROF (also notifying WP:GNG and WP:VPP) and create consensus instead of partisan activities by nominating all Framework Programmes' articles one-by-one for deletion. Beagel (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See MelanieN's explanation above. I'm not saying that PROF applies, just making an analogy. Another one would be sports: it would be weird to have a lower bar for a whole team of athletes than for a single athlete only. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After carefully reviewing the article and arguments above, I think it just satisfies WP:GNG, based on references 9 and 10. The tone of the article is not promotional but educational and informative. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref. 10 is an in-passing mention in a brief news item (if you don't have access, send me an email address where I can send the PDF). Ref. 9 is a report on the project from participants and, as such, not independent. As it was only just published, it has certainly not yet been cited, so at right now there is no way of predicting whether this will generate much, if any, interest of the wider scientific community. --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a such, this is sufficient for WP:GNG. For WP:GNG this is irrelevant how much interest it will or not will create in the scientific community. However, it would be relevant if there is specific notability guidelines for research projects. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So an in-passing mention together with a report by the participanst does not satisfy GNG. --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another one of those Europrojects that has some flashy news but no real notability. WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nothing to see here, move along. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly journals like Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology and Chemical Research in Toxicology fall under WP:DOGBITESMAN in this case? Beagel (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because those publications are not independent, but written by project participants. Publishing is what academics do. I myself have a grant (all alone, not a huge team of researches like this project) and we have now published 4 papers in good journals. Does that now mean that my project is notable and should have an article? Of course not, all I did was my job, nothing out of the ordinary: indeed, Dog bites man. --Crusio (talk) 19:07, 23 October 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, causa sui (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This project has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the current references are non-independent, having been written by the participants themselves. Goodvac (talk) 02:18, 26 October 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.