Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open PHACTS

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) 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open PHACTS

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

Project that started earlier this year and will run for 3 years. As usual with this type of articles, it is long on promises and short on facts. It lists some notable people and organizations that are involved (but notability is not inherited. No independent sources as yet. May become notable in future, but at this point that is impossible to say. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article to clarify some timelines, added a sentance to improve the lead-in to the article and added some references. I will add the Scientific Advisory Group listing this afternoon. ANy feedback welcomed--ChemConnector (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add that listing, as it would contravene WP:NOTADIRECTORY (we don't list editorial boards of scientific journals, either) and, in any case, it doesn't contribute to showing notability anyway. --Crusio (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGh...I already added it as I had not seen your comment. So I will remove it immediately. Please give me some direct examples of "notability" that you think might apply. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChemConnector discloses his identity on his userpage, and so being mentioned in the article, has a WP:COI Widefox (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails general notability due to lack of strong independent refs. Widefox (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC) COI/SPA issues with multiple editors. This is an example of WP:NOT - an open wiki for a consortium! Widefox (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG as currently lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Maybe it will have in future, but not at present. Qwfp (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that WP:GNG puts any project in an impossible position with regard to wikipedia coverage. If you have a poor opinion of historic projects and what they promise, why not give the project a year/18 months then judge it? In the scale of things (interest declared as a project participant), a €16M project between major pharma and academics in this area is a big deal which people actually want to find out about. I can't help questioning the sense of GNG when compared against some *incredibly* ephemeral pages on wikipedia which have extensive third-party references. List of video games in development? Rsc.kidd (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)— Rsc.kidd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I encourage you to nominate for deletion any pages you find of dubious notability. I note, however, that List of video games in development has a significant number of references... Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article and a few related articles are riddled with WP:COI issues. I have asked the Rsc.kidd to disclose any COI with this and related topics as hinted by his username. Widefox (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC) The COI is confirmed. Widefox (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am getting more an more sad, that Wikipedians seem to live in a different century. Information about major current projects is relevant, is important to people. Not only after 10 years. Now. The notability guidelines seem to be written by historians, not scientists, or researchers. End of Rant... Vigilius (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your "keep" !vote is based on WP:IAR, as your argumentation does not seem to fit any other policy guideline. --Crusio (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this project is larger than many highschools, or music groups, etc. Yug (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My local football club is larger than this project, too, but that does not mean that it is notable. nowhere does "size" enter in our criteria for notability. --Crusio (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically promotional article about a project that might at some future time become notable. We are not a source for information about "major current projects"; we're a source for information on them after they have become notable. We're an encyclopedia , not a news bulletin. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 21 November 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.