Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordbib


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nordbib

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

Delete, seems to be spam. Has some notability but would take a rewrite to get it close to a nuetral status. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how you find it spammy or not neutral? I'd love to change it, but I don't find anything biased about it. thanks in advance. MikkelChr (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Statements like...."The future of Nordbib

"Based on the positive evaluation of Nordbib and the challenges ahead with regards to Open Access, Nordbib is applying for a continuation of the programme. The application is backed by a unanimous NORON group." just my opinion but sections 6-8 cam be completely removed as well. There is also a need for more sources. Just a couple of issues from the top of the page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might also help to read wp:rs, wp:notable and wp:corp.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and removed the adjective "positive." I've also added the European Commission's 2832nd conclusions to back the claim that Open Access presents challenges ahead. I'd also like to add that a movement to or away from Open Access publishing determines the fate of an insane amount of money for research institutions everywhere as well as deciding the fate of the nature of the science communication system itself (see a.o. the so-called Houghton reports by economist John Houghton and his team). . Hence, organisations with some impact on all this is worthy of notability in my view. I thank you for your helpful comments so far, but I do feel that calling it 'advertising' is a little unfair. MikkelChr (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unsure that it meets guidlines, I do think the improbvements so far really hel[p but there is still a lot of work to do. This however is why I opened this as a discussion so not just my opinion is takaen into account. Keep up your work on it.

That's absolutely fair. Thanks. We'll keep working on it and await feedbacks. MikkelChr (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): I think the criterion that applies here is WP:NOBLECAUSE.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. An article about an umbrella organization that sponsors a variety of computer science projects is probably preferable to having articles on the individual projects.  This text could use some pruning; "information science" people seem to have trouble communicating with concrete, informative prose.  This text does its cause no favors by including opinionated vaporings of a kind that make it read like spam, so the test surely could use some pruning: ... Challenges in Open access are many and wide-ranging. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Cause factor. I've read through it carefully and I believe the article adheres to all the points (except no. 4, which is moot anyway). As for the vaporings, yes it does sound kinda yucky. I'll fix it asap. 77.212.2.11 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate combination article for a multi-national regional part of a world-wide movement.    DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Large-scale umbrella project funded by the Nordic Council. I agree that the individual sub-projects are probably not notable. The article needs work and more references but after a bit of rummaging I've found several more refs which I'll add later today (no time right now).  Incidentally, I found the part about the budget hard to understand - the aggregate worth is 22.5 million Danish Krona, is that correct? (That's about US$ 4.2 million.) Of course the amount of money in the project isn't a good measure of its notability, but at least it shows that it's not just some minor undertaking in a remote corner of the world.  --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. You got the budget part exactly right by the way. I'll try and compare to similar entries when I have a little breathing room and see if I can come closer to that standard prose- and otherwise. MikkelChr (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (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.