Milos, now that's interesting. I don't know User:Crusio but it's interesting
to see an academic propose a page of academic relevance for deletion.
WSC, thanks for restoring the page: I'll ping some of the early contributors (some of
them are active Wikipedians and part of the Wikipedia Chemistry page and I think they were
planning to rebuild the page anyway with better sources).
Cheers
Dario
On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
BTW, proposer [1] is actually interesting person for
RCom itself. He
is Research Director at French National Centre for Scientific Research
[2], which is a huge scientific organization.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crusio
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_National_Centre_for_Scientific_Research
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 08:35, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dario,
Prod is for uncontentious deletions, anyone can dispute a prod either during
the 7 days or after. So as you are disputing it I've restored it per your
Email.
There is a risk that someone could now file an AFD on it, but you could
prevent that by adding a couple of independent sources.
There is a broader problem that some people are prodding unreferenced
articles rather than improving them, and if no-one is watching the articles
get deleted.
WereSpielChequers
On 15 August 2011 19:12, Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
All,
I wanted to draw your attention on the recent deletion via WP:PROD [1] of
an English Wikipedia article on a large EU research consortium called Open
PHACTS [2]. Open PHACTS is a €16m EU-funded research project aiming to
create an open body of pharmacological data [3]. It involves 22 partner
institutions from research and industry and will run for 3 years. The
article in the English Wikipedia was deleted with the following comment:
"Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Ephemeral project.
No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.'"
There's something obviously broken in a process that ends up with a
decision by a single editor to delete an article on a major EU research
project involving hundreds of researchers and millions of taxpayer money by
calling it "ephemeral" and "non notable". I am particularly worried
by the
double standards that we apply to popular indie rock bands with an active
fan base (for which notable sources certainly abound) and projects of this
kind. I am also worried that this deletionist turn may jeopardize the
efforts that many among us are putting into finding effective ways to engage
with the academic/expert community and increase their participation in
Wikimedia projects. Our own Daniel Mietchen is starting to work with
scholarly organizations to increase the visibility of open science articles
in Wikipedia and just a few days ago a campus ambassador for the Global
Education Program met with people from the National Academy of Science to
discuss their institutional involvement in Wikimedia project.
I am confident the Open PHACTS article will be recreated with sourced and
better materials, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on what RCom could do
to make sure that research-related initiatives that deserve visibility on
Wikipedia are not randomly deleted. There is a growing number of initiatives
in our community to help companies make genuine contributions to Wikipedia,
I wonder if it's not time to start thinking along the same lines for
research-related contributions.
Dario
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_PHACTS
[3]
http://www.openphacts.org
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
_______________________________________________
RCom-l mailing list
RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l