Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glycobiology research and training center


 * 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. BJ Talk 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Glycobiology research and training center

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company. No references at all. Few Google hits. Written like an ad, or at least a press release. Declined speedy, but User:DGG noted in the edit summary: "almost certain will be deleted if taken to AfD". (Is that a vote, David?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyvio? The article is pretty clearly cribbed from this page with minor rewriting. Anyone want to opine on whether the rewrite is sufficient to avoid copyvio concerns? Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that on the talk page the article creator specifically claims he's been instructed to copy the text over by the author of the UCSD page... Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see DGG has similar copyvio concerns about the centre's director's bio, and I note that the creator of the Glycobiology research and training center, User:Varkilab's name is suggestive of a role account. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the note at the talk page is sufficient to address the copyvio concerns. WP:IOWN says that in these kinds of situations the copyright owner needs to either e-mail WMF directly or put a note directly at the webpage containing copyrighted material permitting its GFDL use. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather let it go down on notability, so that it is gone for good. But there are copyvio issues, I think. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete the Glycobiology research and training center is a subdepartmental unit, in my (very fallible) memory every AFD we've had for one of those has been a delete. Obviously this would be a keep if it satisfied WP:N by being the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.  My googling turns up very little. Glycobiology Goes to the Ball The Scientist 16[9]:32, Apr. 29, 2002 looks good, but features the Consortium for Functional Glycomics, mentioning the Glycobiology research and training center only tangentially.  So I don't see how this passes WP:N or WP:CORP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a "unit" of a larger entity, and the entity may or may not be substantial, but the unit within it can't be.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: who does my boss need to email to illustrate the permission given to me to make this page? glycobiology is a small and upcoming field of study in science. it is a new type of research that is combating the race to cure cancer and other human diseases. this wiki page would allow for possible individuals to see that education in this scope is available for them. please tell me what i can adjust in my page to make it stay. Varkilab (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Varkilab. I'd say there are two issues.  The first is the copyright permission issue (proceedure for that is explained at WP:IOWN and ought to be pretty simple for your boss to do via email).  The second (and probably more difficult) is that the article has to demonstrate that the Glycobiology research and training center passes the standards of notability (explained at WP:N).  Since GRTC is an organizations it will probably be judged according to the guideline at WP:GROUP.  I'd be happy to answer any other questions here or on either of our talk pages.  Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are working a bit to spec for your boss, but my suggestion would be to put this effort into improving the Glycobiology article, rather than this page. If "glycobiology is a small and upcoming field of study in science" then Wikipedia needs really good article on Glycobiology far far way more than it needs one on the Glycobiology research and training center. Just my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have a conflict of interest problem here, don't we? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On Glycobiology research and training center, clearly... but until proven wrong I think the editors have the ability to improve a fairly drafty article on Glycobiology and wouldn't that be nice... Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article calls it a "virtual center" ; in reality that means a few faculty members with common interests using a catchy title to attract funding and arrange seminars--a very useful academic technique, and not the least disreputable--but that doesnt make it notable. Every department of any repute has several such centers. The Univ. of California in particular  due to its multiple campus nature has dozens upon dozens of such programs. My advisor was as I remember a member of four different ones at least.  A few of such groups will even become notable in some real sense, but it would take strong positive evidence. I second Pete's advice to work instead on articles in the subject-- and I'd then suggest   articles on the most notable senior faculty, present and past, with verifiable awards and distinctions. That will serve more to advance the field than meaningless articles like this. DGG (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing more to say really.Nrswanson (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (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.