Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso


 * 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   keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Duplicate of "OPERA Experiment" and "OPERA Neutrino Anomaly" Ajoykt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy A10, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - They are not duplicates. CNGS is the CERN facility located in France, the OPERA experiment is Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare facility located in Italy, two distinct facilities and these two articles are clearly different. The OPERA neutrino anomaly time of flight is a new article that was recently seperated away from the OPERA article due to the interest in the faster than speed of light results recently there, they are three separate subjects and I fail to see the initiating editors belief they are duplicates. Yes the three articles share a a commonality in the neutrino beam itself but that's where it ends. One should also note that CNGS complex also feeds other experiments and facilities, so the idea of combining the CNGS and the OPERA article is out as well. I would suggest a re-write if the initiating editor has concerns but not a deletion of two/threee clearly notable articles, or if the it's having three articles I would suggest re-merging the Opera and it's results article. Khu  kri  05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both OPERA experiment and CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso have as their topics a scientific experiment, a collaboration between CERN and LNGS, to detect neutrino oscillations in a neutrino beam generated at CERN and beamed to LNGS. Are you saying these are two different experiments that just happen to be very similar? The articles are not verbatim duplicates, but they appear to cover the same topic, although OPERA experiment has more on the instrument used at the receiving side for detection. --Lambiam 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * CNGS isn't in experiment per se, it is to all intents and purposes a neutrino production facility sending them through the crust to the experiments such as opera, icarus etc. Though there are small side experiments carried out within the CNGS cavern, such as testing for single event failures of electronics etc, but these aren't really that notable. CERN provides the neutrinos LNGS measure them, it's an agreement / experiment across physics organisations. Khu  kri  14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but then the lead is misleading: "CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) is a physics experiment that is part of the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator complex at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland." The CNGS website distinguished between the CNGS project, and the CNGS facility, other combinations qualified by "CNGS" being CNGS beam and CNGS target. The term "CNGS" is mostly used as a qualifier and only very infrequently in a stand-alone fashion. Perhaps a better start is: " The CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) project is a physics project that uses the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator complex at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland." --Lambiam 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Khukri.&thinsp;&mdash;&thinsp;Pt&thinsp;(T) 14:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I will take out the deletion tag, per your explanation. As to remerging the anomaly article with the OPERA article, that has to be discussed on those pages. Since the anomaly article is bigger, remerging would skew the OPERA article. Ajoykt (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you should do is strike-through your deletion rationale above; an uninvolved editor should then close the discussion. --Lambiam 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.