Talk:Geosciences Barcelona (GEO3BCN)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Notability template? edit
User:Guillaume2303, your assertion that "an in-passing mention in one newspaper does not indicate notability" is not correct: an entire article of half a page (p. 31) in the 3rd newspaper in Spain is indeed devoted to the institute. I would kindly ask you to look around in other equivalent articles (eg. Institut_d'astrophysique_de_Paris) and check the 'notability' documentation offered. And then remove the notability template. Another way (the best one) you can check the notability of a research institute is by checking its scientific publication performance, which you can do using for instance the Scopus database. Gaianauta (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it's not an in-passing mention, but still it is only one single independent source, not enough to meet WP:GNG. Citation rates and such of publications may contribute to the notability of the researchers that have published these articles, but don't show notability for an institute. As or the existence of other articles: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What is needed here are multiple reliable sources discussing the subject of the article in-depth. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- About "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - Has the notability of the other equivalent articles been challenged too? If so, what is the result? Sometimes "other stuff exists" can be used as a legitimate rationale, but it depends. If the "otherstuff" survived an AFD or something, and this is documented, one can argue that there is a precedent. If there has been no challenge, a nominator can simply say "I'm nominating the otherstuff for deletion too." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Depends. If the nominator takes the trouble of going to see the "otherstuff", then (s)he might decide to nominate those articles, too. But every case has to be judged independently on its own merits, so I sometimes not even take a look... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- PS: I just took a moment to go the the article linked to above. The documentation is awful, indeed. I tagged it as such. I also added a notability tag. It has not been at AfD in the past, so feel free... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Depends. If the nominator takes the trouble of going to see the "otherstuff", then (s)he might decide to nominate those articles, too. But every case has to be judged independently on its own merits, so I sometimes not even take a look... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not mean WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What I tried to convey is that your effort in trying to put down this article is seemingly disproportionate with the real Wikipedia in this category. Luckily, that disproportion will challenge me to find more reliable sources, contributing to our shared goal of improving WP. And luckily this will eventually become one of the best referenced articles on research labs worldwide, in spite of its lack of notability. Gaianauta (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, if you can find sufficient references, then it doesn't lack notability any more... No references = no notability; good (substantial) references = notability... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- About "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - Has the notability of the other equivalent articles been challenged too? If so, what is the result? Sometimes "other stuff exists" can be used as a legitimate rationale, but it depends. If the "otherstuff" survived an AFD or something, and this is documented, one can argue that there is a precedent. If there has been no challenge, a nominator can simply say "I'm nominating the otherstuff for deletion too." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620121900/http://www.eeha.csic.es/varios/PlanActuacionCSIC.pdf to http://www.eeha.csic.es/varios/PlanActuacionCSIC.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413150400/http://www.dba.udl.cat/attachments/article/46/valor-a-los-residuos-agroalimentarios-enero-2009b.pdf to http://www.dba.udl.cat/attachments/article/46/valor-a-los-residuos-agroalimentarios-enero-2009b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)