Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISITEP

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. The article's subject is found to not be currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISITEP

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable ephemeral project. No independent sources.As usual for such EU-funded projects, a WP article is created by a SPA, full of wonderful promises about what the project will accomplish, anyday now, really. Article full of gobbledygook, low on real content. Lots of name-dropping with an impressive-sounding list of participants. This is less impressive than it seems: If I get a grant from the EU tomorrow, it will not be me signing the agreement, but my employer. Still, it's just poor old me running the project. Brief projects like this rarely get notable, even if their products sometimes are (in which case we should have an article on the product with a line about the funding, not that this is the case here)." Article de-PRODded by article creator ith reason "he judgment of "non-notable ephemeral project" is just the personal opinion of the reviewer. The merit of the project can only be verifed at the end of the project itself. The project is actually approved by EU and stared" (sic, I guess "started" was meant). I actually agree with that assessment: "The merit of the project can only be verifed at the end of the project itself." That is: not now. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Randykitty. There is little to no secondary coverage for this work in progress, which might (WP:CRYSTAL) somebody be notable.--Gaff (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May someday be notable, if it achieves something. Relentlessly (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to highlight that the Wikipedia page concerns the ISITEP project (which is "now") and not products resulting from the project (which, I agree, are "not now"). The project is something currently concrete. Many other ongoing project are present on Wikipedia. When (someone can say “if”) the project will lead to a product, this will be described in an own Wikipedia page. The general doubts about project results (defined ephemeral for no particular reason) cannot negate the current existence of the project, which is the object of the Wikipedia page. --Pokas_it (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Ephemeral" is there for a very good reason: projects are funded for a limited period of time (or did the EU give you funds for the next 25 years? No? Thought so...) and the resulting consortia are therefore exactly that: "ephemeral". Many things are "currently concrete", but that does not make them notable. My cat is very concrete, but not encyclopedic either. And the few (not all that many) ongoing projects that we have on WP either should also be taken to AfD (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) or actually do have independent sources that make them meet our inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand (but I don’t agree with) the raised points. My opinion, and the reason why I started this new page, is simply that finding information about ongoing project may be useful for people making research in the same field, as well as for generic readers that are looking for information about the research trends. Having a picture about what have been done so far and in which direction are going active projects is something interesting and useful if you are trying to analyse a particular argument (in this case the interoperability of professional mobile radio) on Wikipedia. But if this is somehow not meeting Wikipedia guidelines, of course I accept it. [(“or did the EU give you funds for the next 25 years? No?” - Well, the correct form is “...give them funds...”, since EU is giving me nothing for this project... But this argument is not relevant for a constructive discussion.)] --Pokas_it (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what WP is about: it's an encyclopoedia, not a site to keep people informed about ongoing research projects. For this, there are the project's own website (not very informative in this case), EU-databases of funded projects, and other specialist sites. That the project is funded for only 3 years is relevant, as it shows how ephemeral this kind of consortia are. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what an encyclopedia is, and I never said that Wikipedia is a site “to keep people informed about ongoing research projects” nor a database. I meant that someone may be interested also to this page, if he is looking for information related to this argument on Wikipedia… this is not substituting EU-databases (as “cordis”, which is in fact linked in the page), reporting different kind of information in a static way; the Wikipedia page may evolve and maybe be also the way to start new arguments as ISI (Inter System Interface), which is an ETSI standard completely not covered yet by Wikipedia (as well as TETRA broadband and PPDR networks). Just my opinion. --Pokas_it (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and let it meet the fastest-growing companies, hardest-working artists and most-insightful theories in the gigantic pile of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Tigraan (talk) 10:33, 13 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.