Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INCITE

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. Sandstein 16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INCITE

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

The article's subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a major Department of Energy Program that grants large amounts of money, but the vast majority of the sources that I find are 1) from the DOE and program partners 2) announcements of grants. I did find these two, not major, IMO: Interview, early article. If someone is interested, it would be appropriate, IMO, to link to the program from pages for awardees. LaMona (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this, despite its history here, suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Together with LaMona's two sources, this one puts the topic over the GNG bar. There are also many, many mentions of the organization's activities. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only non-primary source is the Power Engineering article. The others are primary sources (interview directly with program sponsor and Oak Ridge, a co-sponsor or similar). As such, fails WP:GNG. Article also would likely require major rewrite (not a deal-breaker, I know). Chrisw80 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BEFORE D1 states, ..."Google scholar is suggested for academic topics." I get 488 hits on ["Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment" DOE] when I check Google scholar. WP:BEFORE B5 shows that there are ten links that would be broken if this topic is deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be more than adequate sources supporting notability. I have added a comprehensive list to the article's talk page. Numerous wikilinks to this article are also a strong though informal indication of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this may be borderline notable, but the article is a press release. If someone wants to write a proper article, they can try again in draft space--with much stronger 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough reliable sources. And Kvng very nicely added them to the talk page. Does need a rewrite. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would immensely appreciate if this was relisted thrice with hopes for better consensus. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself has only primary sources. Various references have been suggested here and on the talk page, but IMO they fail to provide the necessary support for GNG. Some are primary; some are passing mentions in an article about something else; and some read like a reprint or rehash of a press release. None are from what we normally think of as Significant or Reliable Sources. As for the Google Scholar hits, they appear to be mostly acknowledgements of financial or computer support - not actual coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: like an ad. 333 -blue 05:18, 2 February 2016 (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.