Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberEmotions (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CyberEmotions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article was created in 2011 and then BLARred in 2014. A failed attempt at restoring the article was made a few days ago by Belbury which was then reverted by Randykitty, and there's apparently no agreement in sight. Pinging other editors who participated in the linked RfD: Thryduulf, Lunamann, Voorts. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Websites. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No serious disagreement here, my "attempt at restoring the article" was just to undo the redirect and restore the previous version of the article, after having followed a CyberEmotions wikilink that took me to a page that didn't explain the term. No view from me either way on whether the article should exist. Belbury (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous AfD had two keep !votes, but neither specified any policy reason for keeping the article. There was no source discussion and the only nod to notability was that it had "big players" in the project. But it was, nevertheless, just a research project that seems to have no lasting notability. Research outputs would be primary sources, but, in fact, could be useful in articles that talk about notable subjects for which these are relevant. For instance Sentiment in Twitter events would be interesting in something on the Oscars, or Twitter, or an article about group dynamics. Those notable subjects are not the project itself. Redirect would be fine if there were agreement on a redirect target, but failing that, this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill research project. 40 participants sounds impressive, as does the list of the organisations where they work, but a standard NIH grant to a single investigator usually runs up to a million $$ for 4 years. The EU grant contrasts rather paltry with that: 3.6 million Euros (augmented with existing funding 4.6 million) for 4 years for those 40 investigators. Usually these consortia are ephemeral and CyberEmotions is no exception. It was closed in January 2013 and has disappeared without much trace since. Of course, notability is not temporary, but almost all of the references present in the article date back to when the project wa active and none are the in-depth independent sources required for GNG. Some don't even mention this project at all (e.g. ref 4), which is all too common in this kind of drummed up promotional "articles". Note that one of the conditions to obtain EU funding id to publicize the project and its funding sources as much as possible, and WP is then an obvious target. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2024 (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.