- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Holocene Impact Working Group
- Holocene Impact Working Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is zero coverage of this group as an entity, as opposed to their (fringe) research. This isn't surprising; we rarely (if ever?) have articles on individual labs or research groups. – Joe ( talk) 21:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting work, but the group as an entity has not at this point received anything beyond passing/incidental mention in literature (as one does when stating affiliation to some research collective). Based on current practice, a research group needs to receive quite some coverage in its own right before it merits a standalone article. I suggest the group's findings are better suited to the individual topic articles ( megatsunami, impact event), or the articles on individual researchers, which exist for a couple of the members. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC).
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Holocene Impact Working Group
- Holocene Impact Working Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is zero coverage of this group as an entity, as opposed to their (fringe) research. This isn't surprising; we rarely (if ever?) have articles on individual labs or research groups. – Joe ( talk) 21:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting work, but the group as an entity has not at this point received anything beyond passing/incidental mention in literature (as one does when stating affiliation to some research collective). Based on current practice, a research group needs to receive quite some coverage in its own right before it merits a standalone article. I suggest the group's findings are better suited to the individual topic articles ( megatsunami, impact event), or the articles on individual researchers, which exist for a couple of the members. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC).
- 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.