Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tribology organizations


 * 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   no consensus. One two three... 20:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

List of tribology organizations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTLINK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wikipedia is not a mirror.  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * D/e/l/e/t/e/: Neutral 'mirror' is less of a problem than 'repository of links', but neither are apparently valid Wiki topics. Note the the article was just created today.  It is possible that the user would turn this into something wiki-able - possibly move this into his user space?  Certainly, if it is deleted, he needs to be told how to get it back and fix it.  He has added an underconstruction tag...  Oh, and the fact that for Higher Ed, whole universities are cited, not the departments or institutes that are actually concerned with the research make this less of interest.--David V Houston (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As the author of this page, and actively involved in the research field it pertains to, I feel that this page while under construction, is absolutely necessary. The reason I created this page is because a very similar page exists for na/notechnology, which is arguably a smaller, but more known field than the that of tribology. The issue being that the tribology page is due for serious improvement, but the first step seemed to be to remove the clutter that a few of the researching institutions had added. nanotechnology had done this in what seems to be a very correct way by placing all of the organizations in one neutral list. I have begun by adding a number of institutions who are world leaders, most of which are competitors to the group I work in, however, as the number of organisations is well over 100, the site is listed as 'under construction'. There are a number of us working on collecting the relevant information, it just takes more than two days to collect and prepare it all in a manner that is acceptable to Wikipedia. If there is a better way to go about this, I am all ears, as I am very new to Wikipedia, and am quite certain that the current arrangement, while not the best option, is far superiour to what existed just a couple of days ago. • gregzore (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2010
 * I'm at a loss as to where on the nanotechnology page there is a link to something along the lines of list of nanotechnology organizations. Instead of this article of just ELs you should look at the DMOZ. Wizard191 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's right here list of nanotechnology organizations ... The link to it is from the right hand navigation bar on the nanotechnology page. gregzore 1633 15 April 2010
 * Ah...thanks for that. I missed the link on the page and the spelling. Wizard191 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have been working on improving this page per the comments regarding listing individual groups instead of just blanket labels. I am going to continue this effort. However, I am going to wait until the decision has been made regarding the article's existence before I put too many more late evenings into it, hopefully this is understandable. user:gregzore 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT as it does not have a verifiable definition in accordance WP:LISTS without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to strongly disagree with the point on " entirely made up of unrelated topics..." as every single one of the listings on this list are directly related to the title of the list. Similar lists to this have been published in various journals through the years, and so are very inaccessible and difficult to find. I disagree on the other points in their interpretation.Gregzore (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment They are only related because you say so. There is no published definition or published list cited in htis list article to verify that your opinion is correct. I have to call you bluff - show me the sources that show this is published topic - otherwise it is impossible not to conclude that it is an entirely new and novel topic published nowhere else other than on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep in mind that this list is not complete (per the header) as I have been obliged to spend my editing time validating its existence instead of improving its content. Another similar list on a commercial site, another . Or, for a truly exhaustive list of tribology organizations see the references from the links provided here . I have a paper copy at my office of an older list of groups engaged in this field. I will either post the link, if I can find it among all the massive number of articles related to this topic in the next day or two, or if you like I can scan the abstract and send it directly to you. Gregzore (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are a couple published lists of research organizations from a peer reviewed journal, and .Gregzore (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The list you have cited is "The A-Z of tribology research organizations working on modelling". This is a different topic to this one. We can't presume that this list is verifiable in the absence of evidence. No amount of crystal ball gazing is going to make up for this. As far as I can see from web searches, this list has only ever been published in Wikipedia, which supports my view that it is an entirely original and novel list topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research, and until such time as a source can be found for the list itself, or for the list defintition, then Wikipedia should not have a list article on this topic at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You can say this about essentially *any* list on Wikipedia, as you'll never find exactly that list published somewhere else (that would be blatant copyvio anyway). Mention in established conference papers and the like should suffice to provide notability. Your argument is invalid to me. Nageh (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to me to satisfy Stand-alone lists, and the author has probably done the right thing in not adding the list to tribology. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole reason for creating this list is that organizations involved in tribology research had begun to add themselves to the main tribology page without any order or neutrality. The issue being that without a list such as this, it will be an uphill battle to keep the main tribology page clutter free. Gregzore (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT states: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." Which essentially means that WP:NOT must be followed first. Seeing how this is an external linkfarm WP:NOTLINK applies here. Wizard191 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*Keep. I see nothing deeply wrong with this list, as long as entries refer to organizations for which blue-links exist. There are far more disputable lists on wikipedia. Nageh (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: So, if this list is to be deleted, what should be done to it to make it acceptable. More importantly, how should related topics wear, friction, and lubrication be treated so as to be neutral in their treatment of 'major publications' etc?  And finally, what makes this list different from list of nanotechnology organizations?  Gregzore (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, good, they added the actual groups doing the work (instead of just listing the University). I rescind my delete vote.  Ja, that shouldn't change things, but it does.  David V Houston (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but greatly (greatly!) trim I think that this could be a useful navigational aid, but is currently a WP:LINKFARM. My reading of LINKFARM indicates that the internal links, as a navigational aid, are quite reasonable.  So keeping only blue-linked groups is, as I read it, perfectly fine.  That said, I'd prefer, via IAR if needed, to keep the academic journals too.  Finally, that nano-tech one needs the same thing done.  Even worse than this one does. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A little confused, do you mean for example that the societies that are not linked should be removed? I wasn't terribly happy with the societies portion of the list, but at the same time was trying to be neutral.  Using the possibility of linking seems to be a reasonable and fair way to differentiate between important and unimportant groups.  I will try to get that worked out shortly.Gregzore (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, those groups that don't have an article should be removed as I read the relevant policies. Academic, company, whatever.  As I said, I personally would prefer to keep the journals in any case (not so spammy, and honestly I find them useful to have).  I just don't see a way to avoid having every little group that does tribology listed without having such a bar. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think that would remove every single academic group as no group (not parent institution, but group) has an article. I'm not overly happy with that outcome, and maybe this is an IAR kind of thing and such a list can be useful.  But per policy I believe they should go.  If there is an official list (say by ASME) of tribology research groups, that would be different (in my opinion...) Hobit (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not that easy. You will easily find articles on established universities, and citing all that have departments working on the subject will easily result in a never-ending link farm. Keep vote retracted. Nageh (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The challenge is deciding what qualifies. As the list stands now, the university groups generally have considerable laboratories and resources dedicated to the field of tribology research. There are however, as in any field, a lot of individual researchers with a couple machines who do research.  That being said, I feel that the term 'organization' generally refers to something larger than 2 or 3 persons, and should lead to the more major groups being included and the smaller groups not being included.  Examples being INSA de Lyon which has coupling to three separate tribology laboratories, or Imperial College London which each has around 50 people actively researching with in the field.  Groups that large should maybe be worth including.Gregzore (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2010 (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.