Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups

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.  Sandstein  06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics research groups

List of microfluidics research groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't see this list being encyclopaedic. it is simply a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in a way all lists are a directory. I wish there would be lists like this for each research field, because I am sure there are undergrads interested in a filed like microfluidics who would find this useful for their grad choices.
  Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

merge or clean up to meet list-related guidelines, and then keep, nominator fails to explain how this is deletionable under policy, while it would do no harm to the project to keep this information in its appropriate place. riffic (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keep. It is important to explain why this is list serves a notable or encylopaedic value. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

note to nominator:

When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. riffic (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I cited policy

WP:NOTDIR. So please don't jump to conclusions. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Without explanation. You say you don't see this list being encyclopedic, I say it does. Care to explain why? riffic (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is simply a directory of groups. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a

applicability of notability guidelines to this stand alone list, you might have a better argument. riffic (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

References such as this and this would be a decent start to satisfying the notability requirements of stand-alone lists, being

WP:SALAT and tell me if you find that this is not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. riffic (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

for the moment, I will let the AfD run its course. rather than responding to everything you insist I must do like it's life and death, you do not control me. your

WP:NOHARM argument hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - No reason for stand alone list. Also, nobody can be
  talk) 08:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where am I being forceful? I don't appreciate these accusations of bad faith. Do you have an explanation how this (with above references cited) fails notability guidelines for a stand-alone list? riffic (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORCED redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images for some unknown reason, did you have another policy you intended? riffic (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2011 (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.