Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge allocations

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge allocations (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)

PROD removed with no explanation. PROD reasoning still stands: A long table, lots and lots of categories, but no explanation whatsoever of what this page is? The Advanced Scientific etc. doesn't have an article nor an explanation here (not under the full name nor as ALCC), although this problem was indicated 2 1/2 years ago. If you can't even explain what an article is about, and the three (presumably primary) sources all fail, then we have no way of determining its notability. clpo13_(talk) 01:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NOTJOURNAL MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of projects funded by a Department of Energy program, but I can't find any independent secondary sources discussing it. The table of items comes from primary sources. No indication that this is anything other than a normal program for funding projects. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article is Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The list is a bit of advertising. Right above the "See also" with this link the article says "Participants may inquire about joining an existing project by contacting the project's Principal Investigator." StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The promotional material has been removed. I have added an introductory section to give encyclopedic context to a list that provides some practical examples of US efforts in Grand Challenge problems in computing. Would you take another look before deciding on deletion? Also, if you do delete, may I ask you to merge the relevant information I've added into Grand Challenges? --Djembayz (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a list of signicative efforts in advanced science... This article should be keeped and expanded. --Leglish (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above editors, particularly MarnetteD's WP:NOTJOURNAL insight, and StarryGrandma's very cogent points. While the table is well structured, I don't see the use of a list of allocations, so I don't see the benefit of the merge, sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The actual allocations are important because it shows DOE priorities in terms of solving grand challenges. The priorities can change over time, this is what the list reflects. There is a taxpayer dollar amount associated to each allocation, which can be calculated based on the allocation size.Codepro (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As much as I am in favor of promoting all STEM topics, this seems like a overly-specific list and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The title is also unworkable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment needs more ref-searching than I have time for now, but seems notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 6 November 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.