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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable project. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're kidding. We should certainly merge the article with MarBEF Data System, but your non-notability assumption is ridiculous. This project is where the World Register of Marine Species was basically developped. --PanchoS (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep - The accidental fork MarBEF Data System to be merged has plenty of ref. -M.Altenmann >t 03:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty indeed. And, as usual with these EU-project articles, not a single one is independent. There is 1 (one) independent ref in the article on the World Register of Marine Species, perhaps there's more on that. So at best, what I see is that Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning and MarBEF Data System could be redirected to the article on the register, which already mentions EU funding. Apart from the register, I don't see any notability for the project. Such porojects are inherently ephemeral. All such articles always try to look more impressive by listing the institutions that collaborated/coordinated the project. Anybody familiar with these things knows the reality: If I tomorrow get a European grant to do some research, it is not me as a person singing the agreement, but my institution that signs, even if at our institution it is only poor old me who is involved in the project. It is the same with NIH and NSF grants in the US (which are often larger and more effective than these EU grants), even though I have yet to see a single article on one of those NSF/NIH grants (and justifiedly so). While the results of these grants (such as the register) are sometimes notable, the participating institutions are almost always notable, and some of the researchers involved may be notable, most of the projects themselves have not notability except that which they inherit from those results/individuals/institutions. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and merge all of the info at MarBEF Data System to here, with MarBEF redirecting here as well. Earflaps (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Keep" based on what?? All the non-independent sourcing? --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third-party sources are scattered about on google. A project like this is unlikely to get a lot of buzz in the mainstream press (unless there's a controversy), but the academic world seems to find it worthy of notice. Earflaps (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2015 (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.