Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaskForceMajella

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TaskForceMajella

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Topic does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG --- cannot find sources about the research program that are independent of the program itself. — hike395 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — hike395 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Software, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not know how to answer. The article cites tens of scientific articles which are spin-offs and has been one of the most important scientific JIP research projects on the topics ever conducted. Is it important to cite scientific articles that cite the project? These are available. Jpvandijk (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpvandijk We need sources that discuss the subject in some detail, not just cite it. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpvandijk: To amplify what Doug Weller is saying: we need sources, independent of the project, that provide significant coverage about the project itself. Articles that cite articles that were produced by the project aren't the same thing. More specifically, you state that the project "has been one of the most important scientific JIP research projects on the topics ever conducted". If so, then it should be easy to find independent reliable sources that say something like this (rather than taking your word for it). I would recommend taking a minute to read WP:GNG. — hike395 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I have looked and looked and cannot find any independent reliable sources that supports the notability and significance of TaskForceMajella. Paul H. (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2025 (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.

Post-close comments moved to Draft talk:TaskForceMajella#Discussion about notability — hike395 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]