- 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. conensus is to delete MBisanz talk 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Old AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Though there are many hits for this group on Google Scholar, It seems none of those hits are independent, or provide more than trivial coverage. It seems that the hits originate mainly from papers written by Đurić, and Jovanovic, both members of the group. The group verifiable excists, and has members, but apart from that, very little can be said about it that is verifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. Seems to fall in between WP:PROF and WP:GROUP, but doesn't meet either. Orpheus (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- * Hi everyone, I am the creator of this page. I have found on Wikipedia several pages about research groups in different areas. That inspired me to write about this group because I think that is unique group in our country Serbia and maybe in the region. Members of the group have some remarkable articles and projects and they are well known and are highly respected in area of semantic web research. This group is an example that no mater how country is small or how uninterested in area of research, small initiative, like this group is, can make its contribution. Is there a way for me to make this article notable? How to find and add needed resources. I am new in writing articles so I would appreciate any help. Thank you in front.Nmilikic (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Nmilikic! In order for there to be an article on the research group, there needs to be substantial information from reliable, third-party sources. If you know of descriptions or criticisms of the organization printed in a magazine, book, or available someplace else that has been written by someone not affiliated with the group, then it might be eligible to be kept. Otherwise, Delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you all for your comments and advices. For example, group is mentioned on the blog of well known magazine about Semantic web, Nodalities Magazine, where an article of one member of the group was published. Does that count as reliable resource or it has to be an article dedicated only to the group? Thank you for the answer. Nmilikic (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, for me it doesn't. The group is mentioned in the article, but not more than that. The only thing that the article actually says about the group, is that Milan Stankovic is a member of the group. Other than that, there is nothing that would be seen as significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you all for your comments and advices. For example, group is mentioned on the blog of well known magazine about Semantic web, Nodalities Magazine, where an article of one member of the group was published. Does that count as reliable resource or it has to be an article dedicated only to the group? Thank you for the answer. Nmilikic (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG. I looked up various hits that one gets from GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks and they seem to be mostly acknowledgements from the articles written by the members of the "Good Old AI" group itself. To establsih notability one would need to demonstrate substantial coverage of the group itself by sources that are independent from it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (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.