Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GridPP

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GridPP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable scientific project. The only apparently independent ref is the BBC one, and that's a repackaging of a press release at http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-05/ppa-ugh050306.html Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was initially completely perplexed by this nomination, wondering why the various scientific papers were being ignored. However, I see WP:Notability, in requiring independent sources for notability, says ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent' and perhaps the nominator is regarding the co-authors of the scientific papers as being the "producers", and they may be affiliated with the topic. However, I think the guideline is trying to say that the journals' editors and publishers must not have an affiliation. Whatever, if the guidelines suggest this sort of topic is not notable, the guidelines are inappropriate in this case, and I choose not to accept their guidance. Thincat (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked some more at the independence and affiliation aspects, considering just the first two references. (1) has countless authors employed by 19 organisations. Possibly two organisations are closely affiliated with GridPP. The rest are universities, users of the system but their researchers will also have been collaborating over the development of the grid. Maybe none of the authors are employed by GridPP. (2) has 15 authors from eight institutions two, maybe three, institutions may be closely affiliated. The rest are university workers. But is any of that relevant? If a newspaper publishes an article it will go to the same sorts of people for its information. It will take its own decision whether or not it is worth publishing (as the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society have done). The journals will have sent the papers for review and taken any editorial decisions they regard as appropriate. The notability guidelines are too blunt to adequately deal with the subtlety of the situation. Thincat (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this one is harder to call, although the "blunt" guideline is what we have agreed to with consensus as a guideline. This seems somewhat related to National Grid Service which was up for speedy deletion in 2007, worked on a little to be rescued at the time, and then sat around until the subject was renamed and seems to have run its course in the meanwhile? Not sure of the exact relationship of these entities are to each other, but maybe something like merge them all together into something like UK National Grid Initiative might be an answer? Although that web site http://www.ukngi.ac.uk/ does not give much information so not sure if that would be appropriate either. We do need to cover this, but just a list of universities that were on the group's web site in 2011 might not be worth keeping (and clearly 2011 is no longer "current" so the dated language needs to go) for example. I would lean to keep if someone has time to clean it up to Wikipedia style guidelines and clarify its relation to the other projects. W Nowicki (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to all you say. Maybe Worldwide LHC Computing Grid or European Grid Infrastructure could be merge targets but I don't have the knowledge required to form a useful opinion. However, as things stand a merge would unbalance any of these other articles. WP has consensus that WP:Notability is a guideline and not a policy and the guideline only says what can be presumed notable and not what is notable. We can still exercise judgement. Thincat (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not entirely understand what this is all about, but it looks notable to me. Perhaps the nom did not understand it either. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.