Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESERVOIR


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RESERVOIR

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project. Although individual components may be notable, these temporary collaborations rarely are. At this point, there is not a single source establishing notability, the sources provided are just simple listings of projects. Does not meet WP:GNG, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Crusio (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have edited this article to update it to the current state of RESERVOIR - i.e. the article now reflects the actual abilities rather than speculating where the project will be down the road.

RESERVOIR is currently an important research project - it is considered by the sponsoring European Commission as its flagship project in Cloud Computing due to the breakthrough ideas and actual progress the project has made. RESERVOIR has over 50 published papers to its credit, and has put on over 70 presentations and demonstrations of its technology, so while the project may be ephemeral, it currently stands at the forefront of research and innovation in the world of Cloud Computing. 192.114.107.4 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011
 * Comment I do not doubt that people collaborating under this project have made valuable contributions (both in print and as "presentations and demonstrations"). However, individual grants like this are rarely notable: just have a look at NIH Reporter to see how many grants (including "center-" and "project-grants") NIH gives yearly and then go see how many of those ever got an article. Only if you can come up with reliable sources that show this project has been noted as a project, would an article here be justified. For the moment, all we have is some directory listings and in-passing mentions. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete if no better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment: I noticed this pay source was recently added to the article. It seems like it may provide substantial coverage. Does anyone have access to the article in order to verify that? (If that source is unsubstantial, delete.) --Pnm (talk) 04:13, 12 January 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.