424:, for a scientist I would expect to see multiple articles with at least 50 cites each, to indicate that the person is a leader in his/her field; truly important academicians may have individual articles which are cited by others hundreds of times. (Those are not firm numbers since some fields of scholarship generate far more citations than others.) The number of cites of articles on this subject is minimal by almost any definition. I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important. --
725:, but written by project participants. Publishing is what academics do. I myself have a grant (all alone, not a huge team of researches like this project) and we have now published 4 papers in good journals. Does that now mean that my project is notable and should have an article? Of course not, all I did was my job, nothing out of the ordinary: indeed, Dog bites man. --
597:
Ref. 10 is an in-passing mention in a brief news item (if you don't have access, send me an email address where I can send the PDF). Ref. 9 is a report on the project from participants and, as such, not independent. As it was only just published, it has certainly not yet been cited, so at right now
373:
Google
Scholar is used, not just to find publications, but to evaluate their impact in the field - based on how often the publications are cited by others. The highest number of cites for any article mentioning this topic is 13. There is another article with 10 cites and all the others have fewer
547:
See
MelanieN's explanation above. I'm not saying that PROF applies, just making an analogy. Another one would be sports: it would be weird to have a lower bar for a whole team of athletes than for a single athlete only.
411:
is mainly a way of recognizing that important scholars may not always receive significant coverage from reliable third parties. I don't think that a consortium would generally be granted that kind of exemption from
152:
573:. After carefully reviewing the article and arguments above, I think it just satisfies WP:GNG, based on references 9 and 10. The tone of the article is not promotional but educational and informative. --
624:
this is irrelevant how much interest it will or not will create in the scientific community. However, it would be relevant if there is specific notability guidelines for research projects.
248:
113:
228:
146:
208:
439:
I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important.
183:
A group of researchers developed a project, obtained funding for it, did the work, and produced some publications. Nothing out of the ordinary here. No
359:
How exactly you define 'minimal'? Because search results you provided (particularly in case of Google
Scholar) shows more than 'minimal' results.
340:
86:
81:
90:
17:
73:
52:
533:) and create consensus instead of partisan activities by nominating all Framework Programmes' articles one-by-one for deletion.
167:
134:
390:
But what is the criteria to be 'minimal' or not? If 13 mentioning of the single article is minimal, what number is not?
807:
36:
598:
there is no way of predicting whether this will generate much, if any, interest of the wider scientific community. --
336:
128:
806:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
680:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
704:
672:
792:
767:
734:
716:
686:
655:
633:
607:
585:
557:
542:
486:
456:
433:
399:
383:
368:
352:
323:
305:
284:
260:
240:
220:
200:
124:
55:
473:): not by whether they have published and if yes, how much, but on whether their publications have had an
280:
77:
174:
783:. All the current references are non-independent, having been written by the participants themselves.
314:
If the references would satisfy GNG, I'd vote keep, too. As far as I can see, they don't, however. --
69:
61:
49:
763:
676:
160:
748:
429:
379:
348:
788:
374:
than 10. This suggests that other scholars are not finding this subject to be worth citing. --
276:
256:
236:
216:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
522:
518:
506:
502:
498:
470:
421:
408:
404:
140:
730:
712:
651:
629:
603:
553:
538:
482:
452:
395:
364:
335:
Not notable in either a general or scientific sense. The consortium gets minimal mention at
319:
301:
196:
780:
621:
617:
530:
526:
514:
510:
494:
444:
417:
413:
407:
doesn't directly apply here, except by analogy, because we are not talking about a person.
293:
272:
188:
671:- Yet another one of those Europrojects that has some flashy news but no real notability.
759:
581:
521:
applies also to research projects. Please let start the discussion at the talk page of
425:
375:
344:
784:
252:
232:
212:
107:
726:
708:
647:
625:
599:
549:
534:
478:
448:
391:
360:
315:
297:
192:
751:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
640:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
574:
642:. So an in-passing mention together with a report by the participanst does
517:). Of course, for this lets make it clear and written in guidelines that
493:
This is interesting: the article is nominated for deletion based on
275:. All of those publications appear to be partners in the project.
800:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
420:. But to answer your question, if I am evaluating someone under
513:(because these are different things and references satisfy
469:
I agree. This is analogous how we judge academics (see
103:
99:
95:
159:
416:, but would be judged more by the standards of, say,
781:
significant coverage in independent reliable sources
758:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
173:
249:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
810:). No further edits should be made to this page.
229:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
227:Note: This debate has been included in the
207:Note: This debate has been included in the
505:, lets say that the reason for deletion is
209:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
246:
226:
206:
497:and then suddenly we are talking about
697:Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology
292:. Provided references clearly satisfy
675:. Nothing to see here, move along. -
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
721:Because those publications are not
443:But this is more far reaching than
616:As a such, this is sufficient for
24:
501:. If the evaluation is based on
701:Chemical Research in Toxicology
779:This project has not received
1:
793:02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
768:17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
735:19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
717:04:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
687:10:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
656:18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
634:17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
608:15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
586:14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
558:08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
543:19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
487:15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
457:08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
434:07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
400:19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
384:15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
369:05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
353:03:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
324:07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
306:07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
285:09:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
56:11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
261:14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
241:14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
221:14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
201:06:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
827:
695:How exactly journals like
803:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
187:sources, does not meet
44:The result was
770:
584:
263:
243:
223:
818:
805:
757:
753:
683:
580:
525:(also notifying
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
826:
825:
821:
820:
819:
817:
816:
815:
814:
808:deletion review
801:
746:
685:
681:
646:satisfy GNG. --
120:
84:
70:InnoMed PredTox
68:
65:
62:InnoMed PredTox
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
824:
822:
813:
812:
796:
795:
773:
772:
771:
755:
754:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
707:in this case?
705:WP:DOGBITESMAN
690:
689:
679:
677:The Bushranger
673:WP:DOGBITESMAN
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
611:
610:
589:
588:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
490:
489:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
441:
356:
355:
341:Google Scholar
329:
328:
327:
326:
309:
308:
287:
265:
264:
244:
224:
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
50:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
823:
811:
809:
804:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
750:
745:
744:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
682:One ping only
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
596:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
583:
578:
577:
572:
569:
568:
559:
555:
551:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
440:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
410:
406:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
330:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
122:Find sources:
118:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
802:
799:
776:
747:
722:
700:
696:
668:
643:
639:
594:
575:
570:
474:
438:
332:
289:
277:Stuartyeates
268:
184:
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
723:independent
703:fall under
337:Google News
185:independent
147:free images
760:causa sui
638:GNG says
571:Weak keep
253:• Gene93k
233:• Gene93k
213:• Gene93k
749:Relisted
509:and not
426:MelanieN
376:MelanieN
345:MelanieN
114:View log
785:Goodvac
595:Comment
576:P 1 9 9
523:WP:PROF
519:WP:PROF
507:WP:PROF
503:WP:PROF
499:WP:PROF
471:WP:PROF
422:WP:PROF
409:WP:PROF
405:WP:PROF
339:and at
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
777:Delete
727:Crusio
709:Beagel
669:Delete
648:Crusio
626:Beagel
622:WP:GNG
620:. For
618:WP:GNG
600:Crusio
550:Crusio
535:Beagel
531:WP:VPP
527:WP:GNG
515:WP:GNG
511:WP:GNG
495:WP:GNG
479:Crusio
475:impact
449:Beagel
445:WP:GNG
418:WP:ORG
414:WP:GNG
392:Beagel
361:Beagel
333:Delete
316:Crusio
298:Beagel
294:WP:GNG
273:WP:GNG
271:fails
269:Delete
193:Crusio
189:WP:GNG
125:Google
91:delete
46:delete
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
789:talk
764:talk
731:talk
713:talk
699:and
652:talk
630:talk
604:talk
582:TALK
554:talk
539:talk
529:and
483:talk
477:. --
453:talk
430:talk
396:talk
380:talk
365:talk
349:talk
343:. --
320:talk
302:talk
290:Keep
281:talk
257:talk
237:talk
217:talk
197:talk
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
644:not
175:TWL
112:– (
53:(c)
791:)
766:)
733:)
715:)
654:)
632:)
606:)
579:•
556:)
548:--
541:)
485:)
455:)
447:.
432:)
398:)
382:)
367:)
351:)
322:)
304:)
296:.
283:)
259:)
251:.
239:)
231:.
219:)
211:.
199:)
191:.
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:.
787:(
762:(
729:(
711:(
650:(
628:(
602:(
552:(
537:(
481:(
451:(
428:(
394:(
378:(
363:(
347:(
318:(
300:(
279:(
255:(
235:(
215:(
195:(
179:)
171:·
165:·
157:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
132:·
127:(
119:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.