Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BROG

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 Keep. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BROG

This article seems more like a stub than an actual article. The reference section is larger than the actual page and not to mention it is simply not notable. Most of the BROG references are other blogs of some Indiana university page. Get rid of this. Amanduhh 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as non-notable. University research groups are rarely notable on their own (with the rare exception). BTW, those refs have links that look like blogs, but they seem to be mostly academic papers.--Kchase T 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to weak delete, as I'm no longer so confident this isn't notable (and how to determine it in this case anyway). Based on elijawright's comment below, I'd ask that if this ends delete, the page get moved to a subpage of Talk:Blog and a note be left there. Kudos to elijawright for the disclaimer, as well.--Kchase T 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a Minute. Can we possibly just create a subject on Blog Research that will be supplemental to the Blog page? I understand that blog research is still in its infancy, but we need to have some way of maintaining its importance for continued research on Wikipedia. By doing this, BROG may still be regarded relevant information, but not enough to constitute its own page. We can have a vast survey of current research. Brirod32 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a moderately well-known research unit within an established university. We're not paper. WMMartin 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox

Delete as per nom and Kchase Bwithh 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came across this entry when I was searching for research on blogs and found it useful, especially the list of references. Jacqui 1:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The information currently available on weblog research via wikipedia is sparse, at best. The content on the page is an overview of work being done by a group of disciplinary experts; while the existence of this page may not be the end product eventually decided upon and promoted, the content *does* need to become integrated into other pages that cover weblog research more generically. Disclaimer: I am a coauthor on many of the papers referenced by this entry. elijahwright 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep This research group is at one of the most important university department for this area of the subject, and the work is notable. It has become the fashion in many areas of science & technology with multiple participants, such as high energy physics, genomics, clinical trials, and complex software studies to use research group names; as this concept is apparently unfamiliar, they keep getting AfDs. The world has changed a little, and who should better realize it than us.DGG 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment What policies suggest this article should be included? That said, what policies suggest this article doesn't meet certain standards? I don't know how to apply WP:V and WP:RS in this situation specifically because it seems the page is about the research output of this group. Some of which has actually been peer reviewed by multiple people. But is that a primary source? It is a weird kind of primary source where reviewers have gone through and decided it was ok. Does this project need to be documented by a secondary source? Or just cited? --Quirex 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:Notability. Regardless of perceived importance, it is not possible to write a proper encylopedia without relying on coverage by multiple, indepedent, reliable sources. Chondrite 09:13, 15 December 2006 (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.