Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini (COST)


 * 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. Courcelles 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gemini (COST)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another Europroject where the author seems to think that independent references are not needed. &mdash; 10:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment (I'm now a Delete, see below) - well it certainly looks terrible, and the links provided are certainly internal to the project so useless as 3rd-party verifiable sources. That doesn't mean sources can't be found. Is deletion the right response here? Googling does turn up journals, conferences etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have written some of this article. This was my first attempt to add something to Wikipedia. I admit it is not perfect but I had hopped in time It can be edited and revised to become better. Hence, I am a bit confused why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a member of such a COST network myself and we have indeed even published a meeting report of our first meeting in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publishing is what academics do and only if others would start writing about our network (small chance...) would it become notable. The same is the case here. The network members do research, present data at meetings, and publish articles: nothing out of the ordinary. The same is the case here and I don't see anything that makes this particular case of Europrojectcruft notable. --Crusio (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, better Delete it then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the basic problem is that it neither shows why the subject is 'Notable' - i.e. why Wikipedia readers should be interested, why it is something out of the ordinary, worth recording in an encyclopaedia; nor that the subject is 'Verifiable', i.e. that there are serious, good, reliable independent sources outside the circle of people involved in some way with the project. At the moment those of us who've looked at it don't think so; if you can prove otherwise, the article will stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks. I am learning the life here. I need to read more. I am also asking others in my group that may have more experience to join in and help to make it to fit to the standards of Wikipedia and show why it deserves to be maintained in Wikipedia. How much time we have before you completly remove/delete it? Even writing these comments, I am not sure I am doing it correct and this is really the place or the way you do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete can't find any third party sources to demonstrate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 13 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.