- 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 redirect to inorganic nanotube. If anyone thinks more information (besides what Materialscientist added) is worthy of merging, they can use the page history (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COINAPO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
At first sight, this looks like a solid and well-sourced article. Looking closer, however, there are several problems here. The well-sourced and solid part is the one about inorganic nanotubes, which describes the field that this project works in. None of the sources in this section are actually about the project or even mention it. The salvageable content could perhaps be merged to some other article, but, in any case, does really not belong in this article. There is also an impressively large section on "important achievements" of COINAPO. To judge this properly, one has to know what a COST Action actually is. This is a relatively small grant of somewhere between 100 and 200 k€, with a large number of members (individual researchers from many different institutions all over Europe, generally several dozen). The COST Action finances during a limited number of years meetings of these researchers, perhaps an annual summer school, and a few visits of one researcher (generally students or post-docs) to the lab of another. The COST Action does not support any research directly. In consequence, the "achievements" of this particular COST Action listed here are, at best, achievements of some members of the network, financed by other means. When one takes into account the above considerations, it appears that there are no independent sources covering this project. The best one available is a special issue of a journal, including papers presented at a COINAPO meeting. As explained above, the research presented at such meetings is not financed by COINAPO and, at best, such a COST Action can be compared to a small scientific society, with the important difference that societies generally have a rather long life, whereas COST actions are for a limited period only. In conclusion, COINAPO does not meet WP:GNG or any of our other notability guidelines. The current article is misleading the reader into believing that this is a research consortium funding important research, which it is not. Hence: Delete (and merge any salvageable material on nanotubes to an appropriate article). Crusio (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete? It will take a lot of time to review this at the depth that the nominator did and for those issues. I did only a superficial review and the reasons given by the nom appear to be the case. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but some of this content, and specifically, the block of text at COINAPO#Recent facts about inorganic nanotubes and their composites may be worth preserving at inorganic nanotube. I'm really in no position to evaluate it, but at least that much reads like knowledge rather than nonsense. The organization may not be notable, but encyclopedic information about the underlying subject is worth keeping. And they're working with tangible, important stuff, and so couldn't be bothered to devise a clever acronym. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to inorganic nanotube. The COINAPO funding is not notable as explained above, but the nanotube material was merged to the target article [1] by another editor, so the wmf:Terms of use prevent outright deletion of COINAPO for the purpose of preserving copyright attribution of the material written by original editor. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a plan. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As mentioned above, I have merged some material from COINAPO to inorganic nanotube. It did require significant revamping (Crusio is absolutely correct that it seems reasonable upon a brief look, but not after proper reading, and this comment is valid not only for the project part, but for the science part too), and my rewriting was just a quick patch. I tried to take the maximum out of this article, but much material is unpublished work in progress.
There are a few technical solutions to the comment on preservation (redirect, stubbify). Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect to the merge target. Thank you, nominator, for such a thorough argument; it's been quite a while since I saw such a thorough nomination statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 11 November 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.