692:
does not matter if it has been cited or not, it means that the publication/claim has been approved as valid by a third party (in this case Nature or
Science). If this was not accepted, it wouldn't be possible to claim on Wiki that publisher N published an article A about topic T before this article had been more than n-times cited! This sounds ridiculous as the evidence is the existence of the article. Thus, in case of Eurogene the only claim we are making is that there is an Open Access portal for genetic materials. The evidence that this is true is: the presence of the portal and the educational materials, the fact that the people who worked on the project provided materials, the fact that the project has been funded by the European Commission (see the CORDIS website), the existence of the Times article etc. I wonder what else might be needed to support our claim. --
942:
agreed on. There is at least one source we all recognize as such (The Times article). What the guidelines would suggest now is to include this entry into a broader topic, but I do not agree with this solution. Given the peculiarity of the project it would be difficult to include it into the
Framework Programmes section as previously suggested and it is also true that, unlike most EU project, the portal is still online after the project end and providing free access to a collection of educational materials which cannot be found elsewhere. I guess that when it comes to discussing articles deletion the first question should always be: "Can this entry be useful to Knowledge (XXG) Users?". I would say yes in this case and therefore apply an occasional exception to the multiple sources principle.--
657:, then hundreds of citations might help to establish impact/notability (and, yes, it usually takes years to accumulate that many). Albert Einstein's bio is in no danger of being deleted, regardless of the number of citations to his papers (or his h-index), because there are tons of articles and even books about him and his life. Having a paper accepted in a highly selective journal/conference is a worthy accomplishment, but in itself not enough to establish notability, because many papers (even in high profile journals such as
623:
happen to only a very low proportion of papers usually at least after a decade of its existence. In addition to that, it is known that papers regarding fundamental research will attract more citations than papers describing specific application areas, such as in the case of
Eurogene. Moreover, metrics such as h-index have been found unreliable and have been significantly criticised. Based on them, Knowledge (XXG) should not inform about the discoveries made, for example, by Albert Einstein
631:? I agree that academics do publish papers, but not everybody is successful. Therefore, I believe that even the fact that papers had passed the peer review process at high impact conferences should be considered as an independent evidence. For example, one of my Eurogene related papers was published at the COLING 2010 conference which had that year less than 19% acceptance rate and is considered the best conference in the world in the area of text processing.
751:, but that is all I can do. Btw. it is not true that articles that are not cited in the first years after they were published do not have impact! Many discoveries were completely rejected at the time of their creation and it took a long time until people realised their benefits. So, I understand that to establish notability in your eyes the portal would have to exist for years regardless of how useful it is. Therefore, the only thing I can do is to vote
322:
1021:, and going by the logo, that appears to be a press release from the Open University (one of the project participants), rather than an independent news story. An additional confusion is that there are at least two unrelated companies called "Eurogene," and an unrelated European organisation (eurogene.org). However, if the projects picks up steam, there should be a more news coverage. --
777:) sources (EU sources are not independent here). The discoveries that you mention that were initially ignored have been heavily cited since. In contrast, there are articles published in Nature or science over 40 years ago that have never ever been cited, not even by their proper authors. I maintain that there is no evidence that such articles ever had any impact at all. --
436:
independent from the subject.Also, given the depth of the coverage and the quality of the source I really cannot see what else can be expected in terms of sources from an entry about a free Open Access initiative like
Eurogene. In my opinion the problem can be easily solved by including the list of external references in the entry. --
390:
evidence, such as newspaper articles, scientific articles, opinion of the
European Society of Human Genetics etc. According to the suggestions above, it seems to me that if we paid money to Google for appearing higher in the result list, there wouldn't be a problem ... This type of argumentation puts me very much off.
962:
because the field is very raplidly moving! Although it is quite easy to read the important new discovery in biotechnology and genetics, it is more and more difficult to understand the real impact on the patients and on society, unless your basic knowledge in genetics in mantained linked with the news.
214:
Dear Crusio, The reason for deletion of this article seems to me invalid. The
Eurogene project was and is a significant step forward in the area of providing Open Education Resources in the area of human genetics. Please have a look on eurogene.open.ac.uk and eurogene.eu. Eurogene is definitely not a
961:
I am a medical geneticist and from my experience with many patients organizations and professional organizations in the medical fields, I can declare that genetics is the most interesting fields because today with genomic studies is present in all field of the medicine. Education is very much needed
622:
This sounds completely unrealistic. Our group at the Open
University is doing research into the models of Open Access publishing and the citation behavior. It is well know that it takes years to develop a significant amount of citations. Hundreds of citations are completely unrealistic as this will
435:
I can see your point, but I still disagree with the deletion. According to the
Knowledge (XXG) Notability Guidelines sources can encompass all forms of published media, including non-online sources. It seems to me that an article on the The Times paper version is to be considered both reliable and
223:. These resources are being used by thousands of people wordwide! In addition, there has been a significant research that lead to the development of Eurogene: please have a look on the list of the scientifically referred publications that were written during the project at the bottom of this page:
941:
I've just realized that I didn't cast my vote yet. I do not wish to enter the discussion about the sources and academic articles, as it's up to each user interpretation of the guidelines to decide what makes a source "independent" and "reliable". I would just like to go back to what we previously
691:
Disagree on this, because
Knowledge (XXG) does specify that ideal sources for e.g. medical claims are published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field and others. The reason is that if Nature or Science publish an article it
795:
From an academic perspective, I would like to ask you to prove that they will not have any impact in the future and that they will not be cited. Please also delete all the Wiki articles about the non notable villages that do just "exist" and are not cited (thus have no impact), the thousands of
389:
Sorry to say this, but I do not thing that Google, Google News nor Yahoo should be considered respectable authorities - contrary to your claim these authorities are not independent!. What matters is the acceptance within the scientific community, thus you should be referring to the third party
480:
on the basis of that Times article. Of course print is usable, and verification from a online copy of it is adequate for a topic like this. I do not compare this with many other european project articles--this particular one is much more specific and is actually producing something other than
966:
I believe that EUROGENE is a good tools for professionals (and very skilled patient organizations) to have the correct education to follow this rapidly moving field of genomic into personalized medicine. Domenico
Coviello, MD, PhD Director of Laboratory of Human Genetics Galliera Hospital,
592:
the project written by project members were heavily cited, that would also constitute evidence of notability. However, for a citation-dense field like genetics, several hundred citations would be needed at the least (that would probably not even be enough to make a
746:
The discussion is obviously not leading anywhere. I understand that in your personal view The Times, respectable journals or European Commission do not establish notability. I strongly disagree with your claims and feel they are unsupported by the text here
215:
private or a for profit organisation. It is a not for profit project being run by a network of European Universities in particular The Open University, European Genetics Foundation and European Sociaty of Human Genetics. Please have a look at the video
497:
Thank you very much for this decision! Can we now remove the deletion box from the page? I think we should follow Matteo's advice to improve the article by including references to the third party evidence. Hope this is OK.
533:), so that at best, this means that some info on Eurogene could be included in an article on a broader topic (such as the one on the Framework Programmes itself). So for the moment I am not withdrawing the nomination. --
52:, being equal discussion for retention or deletion after an appropriate period of time, with significant argumentation pointing out coverage in secondary sources in addition to noteworthy associations and management. —
550:@Crusio: Would you agree that articles published at respectable international peer-reviewed conferences are a valid evidence? I agree that we can include some info about Eurogene to the more general Framework topic.
1119:
No, it says: "Multiple sources are generally expected". That's not a requirement. I normally expect multiple sources too, but a long article in one of the world's most prominent newspapers is quite enough for me.
160:
192:
521:@petrknoth: DGG's !vote is a !vote, not a decision. And there is nothing against editing an article that is at AfD to try to improve it. @DGG: I agree that the Times article is a good source. However,
301:
Dear Crusio, dear Angryapathy, Matteo Dutto from the European Genetics Foundation speaking. There are indeed secondary sources about Eurogene and they are available at the following link
576:. I do not doubt for a second that project members have produced publications mentioning the project, but publishing is what academics do, so that is nothing out of the ordinary. If
121:
343:
722:
that never was cited obviously did not have much impact on its field. Nobody denies that Eurogene exists, the discussion here is about something completely different:
454:
154:
287:
Knowledge (XXG) uses coverage by reliable, secondary sources as its watermark for inclusion. Eurogene does not have significant coverage in third-party sources.
227:. These papers were presented at an internationally approved high profile conferences. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Petr
845:, not really a good argument in this kind of discussions. and could you please log in and sign your contributions to keep the edit history here clean? --
195:. Hardly any of these have notability independent from their organizers/participants and this one is no exception. No independent sources. Does not meet
1022:
814:
245:
219:
on what Eurogene actually is. To give you an example of an educational resource that is provided by eurogene please go, for example, to
1006:
17:
875:
1002:
983:
842:
411:
You misunderstand: Google and Yahoo are being used here NOT to see how high the project ranks there, but to find sources
94:
89:
1147:
313:, Wednesday March 23 2011 paper edition. Also, a post about the Eurogene project by Bertalan Mesko was featured on the
175:
36:
796:
articles about sportsmens and sport events that just took place and did not have any impact nor were widely cited. --
98:
314:
262:
Unfortunately, being "important" or "used by thousands of people" is not an issue here, unless this is documented by
142:
81:
1146:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1026:
818:
375:
249:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
971:
838:
810:
241:
947:
636:
555:
503:
441:
400:
330:
235:
136:
998:
979:
292:
943:
437:
326:
890:
Let me put it this way: "no citations" = "no evidence of impact". And: "just having been published in
1018:
499:
396:
354:
306:
231:
132:
867:
797:
756:
693:
632:
551:
1132:
1112:
1079:
1053:
1030:
994:
987:
975:
951:
907:
879:
871:
854:
805:
801:
786:
764:
760:
737:
701:
697:
682:
640:
610:
559:
542:
507:
492:
469:
445:
424:
380:
370:
358:
334:
296:
275:
253:
208:
168:
63:
627:(had he died after publishing his groundbreaking results). Shall we suggest to delete the article
182:
415:
the project. SwisterTwister's "delete" !vote is based on a failure to find adequate sources. --
1049:
659:
529:
sources are needed (and the blogs/portal sources given above by Matteo.dutto don't qualify as
465:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
670:
585:
1108:
903:
850:
829:
This discussion is getting ridiculous. I don't have to "prove" that they'll never be cited,
782:
733:
678:
665:
606:
538:
420:
288:
271:
204:
1089:
522:
196:
350:
748:
530:
263:
191:
Non-notable project. One of a number of articles created in an effort to promote the EU
1123:
1070:
59:
724:
584:
this project, that would be good evidence of notability. Barring that, per analogy to
369:- Nothing on Google, Google News and Yahoo that would be notable for Knowledge (XXG).
148:
488:
85:
1045:
461:
317:
and the portal has been included as a reference for genetics education both in the
115:
755:
as in my opinion the the sources presented are notable as well as independent.'--
1104:
899:
846:
778:
729:
674:
602:
534:
416:
267:
200:
224:
302:
325:. Should we include all these independent sources in the description page? --
1036:
318:
216:
54:
483:
77:
69:
649:
You misunderstand. I am not saying that having hundreds of citations is
1041:
220:
628:
1140:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
769:
Any subject can be notable shortly after coming into existence
193:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
710:
You nail it on the head: such an article shows that something
863:
On the contrary! You claim that they have no impact -: -->
624:
111:
107:
103:
167:
1040:
article is not a press release. I found it online in
305:
The first and most reliable one is an article called
181:
597:researcher notable, let alone a consortium of 21
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1150:). No further edits should be made to this page.
714:. It does not show, however, that something is
8:
453:Note: This debate has been included in the
344:list of Science-related deletion discussions
342:Note: This debate has been included in the
225:http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/name/eurogene
898:" = "not sufficient evidence of impact". --
455:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
303:http://www.eurogene.eu/?t=page.php&p=16
669:never get cited even once (have a look at
452:
341:
625:http://en.wikipedia.org/H-index#Criticism
217:http://eurogene.open.ac.uk/about-eurogene
841:). As for all those other articles, see
1067:is sufficient to establish notability.
629:http://en.wikipedia.org/Albert_Einstein
580:people have published scholarly papers
967:<personal information redacted: -->
309:by Mark Frary, which was published on
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
221:http://eurogene.open.ac.uk/node/3598
1099:sources. Hence, one article in the
1063:A nearly full-page article in the
24:
864:you prove! I do not claim this.
673:for more details about this). --
238:) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
1:
403:) 9:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
749:reliable third party sources
264:reliable third party sources
1133:12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1113:09:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1080:06:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1054:02:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1031:10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
988:14:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
952:14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
908:14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
880:14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
855:13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
806:14:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
787:12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
765:13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
738:10:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
702:11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
683:12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
641:11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
611:10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
560:10:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
543:09:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
508:10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
493:00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
470:00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
446:11:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
425:10:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
381:20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
359:16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
335:17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
307:Gene genie's treasure trove
297:16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
276:15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
254:15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
209:14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
64:18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
1167:
653:for notability, only that
568:Yes, of course they are,
525:specifically states that
1143:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1017:The main source is the
833:have to show that they
48:. Essentially almost a
1007:few or no other edits
1009:outside this topic.
773:there are good (and
843:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
44:The result was
1131:
1103:is not enough. --
1078:
1010:
991:
974:comment added by
883:
813:comment added by
655:if all else fails
472:
458:
361:
347:
315:Science Roll blog
244:comment added by
1158:
1145:
1130:
1128:
1121:
1077:
1075:
1068:
992:
990:
968:
882:
865:
822:
718:. An article in
531:reliable sources
459:
378:
373:
348:
319:epractice portal
256:
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
34:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1148:deletion review
1141:
1124:
1122:
1071:
1069:
1065:Times of London
969:
866:
808:
376:
371:
323:Scientix Portal
239:
128:
92:
76:
73:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1164:
1162:
1153:
1152:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1116:
1115:
1083:
1082:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1023:202.124.74.113
964:
963:
955:
954:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
885:
884:
858:
857:
824:
823:
815:137.108.145.40
790:
789:
767:
741:
740:
705:
704:
686:
685:
644:
643:
614:
613:
588:, if articles
563:
562:
545:
511:
510:
495:
474:
473:
449:
448:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
394:
393:
392:
391:
384:
383:
372:SwisterTwister
363:
362:
338:
337:
299:
281:
280:
279:
278:
246:137.108.145.40
229:
228:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1163:
1151:
1149:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1127:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1076:
1074:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
960:
957:
956:
953:
949:
945:
940:
937:
936:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
881:
877:
873:
869:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:WP:NOTCRYSTAL
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
820:
816:
812:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
791:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
662:
661:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
496:
494:
490:
486:
485:
479:
476:
475:
471:
467:
463:
456:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
402:
398:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
379:
374:
368:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
345:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
237:
233:
226:
222:
218:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1142:
1139:
1125:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1072:
1064:
1060:
1035:
1014:
970:— Preceding
965:
958:
944:Matteo.dutto
938:
895:
891:
834:
830:
809:— Preceding
774:
770:
752:
723:
719:
715:
711:
664:
658:
654:
650:
619:
598:
594:
589:
581:
577:
573:
569:
547:
526:
518:
482:
477:
438:Matteo.dutto
412:
395:
366:
327:Matteo.dutto
310:
284:
240:— Preceding
230:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
53:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1019:Times story
1015:Weak delete
1005:) has made
837:cited (see
775:independent
574:independent
321:and in the
289:Angryapathy
155:free images
1126:Sandstein
1093:explicitly
1088:Note that
1073:Sandstein
798:Petr Knoth
757:Petr Knoth
725:notability
694:Petr Knoth
633:Petr Knoth
552:Petr Knoth
351:Tom Morris
1095:requires
1037:The Times
868:Petrknoth
651:necessary
572:they are
500:petrknoth
462:• Gene93k
397:petrknoth
311:The Times
232:petrknoth
50:week keep
1097:multiple
1042:NewsBank
1003:contribs
995:Coviello
984:contribs
976:Coviello
972:unsigned
876:contribs
811:unsigned
771:provided
527:multiple
242:unsigned
122:View log
78:Eurogene
70:Eurogene
1046:Goodvac
896:Science
716:notable
671:WP:PROF
660:Science
620:Comment
586:WP:PROF
548:Comment
519:Comment
481:PR-talk
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
1105:Crusio
1090:WP:GNG
900:Crusio
892:Nature
847:Crusio
779:Crusio
730:Crusio
720:Nature
712:exists
675:Crusio
666:Nature
603:Crusio
599:groups
595:single
535:Crusio
417:Crusio
367:Delete
285:Delete
268:Crusio
201:Crusio
197:WP:GNG
133:Google
99:delete
1101:Times
1061:Keep.
601:). --
590:about
582:about
578:other
489:talk
413:about
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
1109:talk
1050:talk
1027:talk
999:talk
980:talk
959:Keep
948:talk
939:Keep
904:talk
872:talk
851:talk
819:talk
802:talk
783:talk
761:talk
753:Keep
734:talk
728:. --
698:talk
679:talk
637:talk
607:talk
556:talk
539:talk
504:talk
478:Keep
466:talk
442:talk
421:talk
401:talk
377:talk
355:talk
331:talk
293:talk
272:talk
266:. --
250:talk
236:talk
205:talk
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
60:talk
55:Cirt
894:or
835:are
831:you
663:or
523:GNG
484:DGG
183:TWL
120:– (
1111:)
1052:)
1044:.
1029:)
1001:•
993:—
986:)
982:•
950:)
906:)
878:)
874:•
853:)
821:)
804:)
785:)
763:)
736:)
700:)
681:)
639:)
609:)
570:if
558:)
541:)
506:)
491:)
468:)
460:—
457:.
444:)
423:)
357:)
346:.
333:)
295:)
274:)
252:)
207:)
199:.
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
1107:(
1048:(
1025:(
997:(
978:(
946:(
902:(
870:(
849:(
817:(
800:(
781:(
759:(
732:(
696:(
677:(
635:(
605:(
554:(
537:(
502:(
487:(
464:(
440:(
419:(
399:(
353:(
349:—
329:(
291:(
270:(
248:(
234:(
203:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.