Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FP6 Grid Computing Projects

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. Courcelles 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP6 Grid Computing Projects

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

Linkspammy list. Many redlinked or nonlinked entries. No sources. Dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of non-notable projects. Most (or even all) of the bluelinked ones will be taken to AfD in the weeks to come, if this has not already been done. This kind of lists is utterly useless. There are hundreds of this kinds of projects going on all over the world. Why only grid computing projects? Why only FP6 projects? Why not also include NSF-funded programs? What about projects financed by any of the hundreds of other research-funding agencies? If by chance an individual project should be notable, it should have an article. The Framework programmes together are notable and databases (like the Cordis site) that contain data on funded projects should be linked from those articles. That's about where this should stop. --Crusio (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete perhaps not utterly but mostly useless. W Nowicki (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I de-prodded this article because it failed to meet the "uncontroversial" test IMHO. In this particular case, the proper solution is clearly the merge that Crusio asks about (perhaps rhetorically?) If there's content that can/should be merged to produce a list of use, the PRODing/AfDing the individual parts is not the way to get that done. Just do the work! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question was absolutely intended to be rhetorical. There are tens of thousands of research projects started each year all over the world. There's no way we could make sensible lists for that, nor should we even try. There are databases for that, doing a much better job than WP could do and we can link to those. I maintain a strong !vote for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you give yourself too little credit, after all, someone did make this list so it can't be that hard. I found it both interesting and useful, and as an average technical user I suspect others will find it useful too. Moreover, databases on the internet tend to be *extremely* ephemeral, and as it has been claimed that "grid computing" is no longer widely used, the list would thus be unlikely to change and of potential value from an archiving and curation standpoint. So after having said this, let me make this official: Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a list of notable grid computing projects is just as notable as any other list on the wiki. Suggest merging the articles into a single list, and pruning non-Wiki entries. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few of the projects have WP pages and the first two I clicked on were of dubious notability (I tagged both). The page itself has no independent references. Fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (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.