Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Webinos

1156:

of a real debate, with valid challenges and relevant responses. Hopefully the tenor will remain so. That said, these questions: (1) The number of sources for Keeping this article is difficult to determine, because many of them seem to represent the same organization, as GiorgioGI himself implied. How do we know that we hear four independent voices? (2) Much doubt about this article has been raised with respect to Notability and Advertising. Could you detail the factors underlying your significantly different conclusions? (3) The References (which are rather more numerous than the guidelines prefer) are all or nearly all to webinos sites, news releases that echo the webinos marketing position, or other research projects whose status is similar to that of webinos. Could you clarify how such references constitute independent and substantial coverage? References to specific sections in Knowledge (XXG) guidelines that validate your conclusions would be very useful, since others have drawn such different inferences from some of them.

993:

appropriate for an encyclopaedia, having noticed the (in my view entirely reasonable) request for the original article to be deleted. I certainly can't deny that I have a conflict of interest. If you have a look at my edits, though, you will hopefully see that they mostly fixed links, introduced references and rephrased language to be clearer. From reading the COI guidelines, I realise that this might still be inappropriate ("strongly discouraged"), so please feel free to roll-back my edits and I hope you will accept my apology. I'm hopeful that the latest version of the article is now more appropriately written, and that webinos might be considered notable enough (due to media interest, academic papers, w3c demo page, book mentions) to be allowed to stay. If not, then is there a particular part of the article that still runs counter to guidelines and should be changed? As for the other accounts, I think

1933:

and others have cited the same sources to opposite conclusions, and some of them have described their reasoning, so I would like to understand yours also. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments about bias and the EU, and if so I regret that too. I was responding to "some comments ... seem to be biased against EU research projects" by expressing my opinion that bias was not a factor. The interested parties having identified themselves long ago, I am aware of no COI or bias operating anywhere in this discussion, nor of any standing claims to the contrary. That said, I wonder if we might now turn to focusing on the question rather than one another. As far as I know, the question is: what do the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, correctly understood and applied, indicate should be done with respect to the webinos page?

1419:

practice of Articles for Deletion. Links to multiple, substantial, independently published sources dealing directly with this article subject are showing above. It is on YOU to either refute the fact that they are substantial and independently published, which you can't do, or admit that this topic meets Knowledge (XXG)'s General Notability Guideline and remains a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. You have spent hundreds of words here; with a similar effort you could have fixed what's wrong with the article. Instead, you've taken the approach of non-stop harassment of anyone who disagrees with your OPINION about the inclusion-worthiness of this particular topic...

531:...webinos will define and deliver an Open Source platform and software components for the Future Internet in the form of web runtime extensions, and complementary infrastructure components, to enable web applications and services to be used and shared consistently and securely over a broad spectrum of converged and connected devices, including mobile, PC, home media (TV) and in-car units. webinos promotes the “single service for every device” vision by providing the necessary technical specification in order to move the existing baseline of web development from installed applications to services, running consistently across a wide range of connected devices. 263:

Knowledge (XXG) article: you've covered all the bases! It's a compliment to Knowledge (XXG) that online marketing campaigns today always want a Knowledge (XXG) presence. No guideline precludes an article functioning as an advertisement if stating facts of general interest has that effect, but an article that is only an advertisement inherently lacks the properties that an article must have. Many such articles are submitted each day and soon deleted. If you discover that competitors have slipped advertisements into Knowledge (XXG), no filter being perfect, you have as much right to object as anyone else. See the

906:. Speculation on how great something might be in the future does not belong. It would be like if a proud parent wrote an article about how their daughter was going to win an olympic gold medal in 2016. Even if the newspapers picked it up, self-sourced predictions are not encyclopedic. If they ever produce, say, a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal, that might be cited. Every research project concerns the "future" so saying it does "research projects on future internet" is content free. As is "security and privacy by design"? Does anyone intentionally design something with flawed security? Makes no sense. 2031:(COI: See my statement earlier) - As you might have noticed, I have been editing the page for clarity and to remove any PR-speak. I think I have done a reasonable job, but the criticism on this page indicates I probably have not. I would be very grateful for feedback on how I can improve this aspect of the article further. Or should it be left to someone not involved with the subject material? With regards to the "lots of sources" problem - as a relatively new editor on wikipedia, I'm not sure of the guidelines here. Could anyone point me in the direction of them? Thanks very much for your help. 751:- I think we can count on GeorgioGI's vote for the article. The History log shows that he wrote the whole thing! We can also count on Truthprovider66. He made every content change that was ever made. How about a Conflict of Interest statement from GeorgioGI and Truthprovider66. Does either of you have any professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, exactly what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to generate income or other value for you in the future? 1191:

That is to say, the COI level is 100%. The other contributors (Truthprovider66, Dsr23, Umnako, 129.67.151.47, Jplyle) all follow a pattern: they have no User page, they are obviously knowledgeable about the project, and they provide no COI information. They would appear to be the colleagues that GeorgioGI mentioned. If so, every contributor to the article has 100% conflict of interest. If the situation is otherwise, please provide correct information. Ornithikos (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1554:

matter. If your work, for example your work at the CNRS were supported not just by them and the NIH, but also corresponding agencies in 5 or 10 other countries, might not such sponsorship mean something, as showing widespread recognition? That's what I meant. I'm aware that European Union projects are all in some sense intrinsically sponsored by all the countries in the Union, so this indeed might be a problem with this and the related articles, if that is all that's meant by sponsorship.

867:. The instructions mention the importance of visibility on Knowledge (XXG) because of its high traffic, as if Knowledge (XXG) were a highway suitable for billboards. Dozens and perhaps hundreds of such pages already exist, all high in technical content, few with references to anything but marketing resources and derived publicity, and none of interest to anyone but a government funding agency, venture capitalist, competing project, or participant. Many have already been flagged for 290:- Nominator: it doesn't matter whether or not a project is or was "ephemeral," only whether it is the source of multiple instances of independent published coverage. Chief defender: this isn't a personal attack on you or the project and you shouldn't respond by attacking the nominator. This article is essentially unsourced and if you want to keep stuff from being hauled to AfD, make sure there are sources showing. Okay, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? Searching... 1579:

they are agreeable, we would then discuss about an application. One of us (who's going to be the "coordinator") would then draft a grant proposal which would be circulated among these colleagues and amended as they see fit. Once we're in agreement, each one of us goes to our institution's signing official, who will sign the application on behalf of the institution. Without any exception that I am aware of, all that these signing officials are interested in is whether the

1773:. I do suspect EU projects have acquired a bad reputation here, but it's not our fault. There is, as noted above, an offsite canvassing site with a "how to" on creating Knowledge (XXG) articles without regard to whether they are actually encyclopedia subjects or not. If the resulting articles were written in neutral and communicative English, this would not be a large problem; as a genre, they tend not to be. So the resulting articles tend to break not only the 236:. My position in real life is immaterial to this discussion. For what it is worth, I personally am part of a European network, too. We even published a peer-reviewed article about our network. But nobody among us has gotten it in their heads to create a WP article on a project that basically is not encyclopedic and does not meet WP's notability guidelines. There are databases where projects like this are listed, which do a much better job than WP could do, so 2075:, that is so similar to webinos that almost anything said about one could be said about the other. The projects began independently and grew rapidly. Both have now applied for funding, but only one can win. The other will be cancelled, and contracts prevent its staff from transferring to the winner. Could you, with equal objectivity and equanimity, write about the competing netinos project exactly as you have written about webinos? 1367:

supporters, of which two provided the COI statements and the third fits the profile described in the first COI statement. That does not discredit their opinions, it discredits your view of their disinterest. You have seven opponents with known Knowledge (XXG) backgrounds. You uphold your viewpoint with an interpretation of notability that is not to be found in the guidelines, though it does appear on your

535:

the privacy aspects of their web presence regardless of the service that is being used. Context and privacy are intimately intertwined: rich context is valuable but without user controlled privacy it becomes a liability. Context and security are intimately intertwined: rich context is valuable but without user empowered security it becomes a liability. This dual approach is a hallmark of the webinos approach.

1137:- Actually, despite the little Assume Bad Faith shenanigans above, the outcome here is absolutely NOT clear. I've got four sources showing above. This subject absolutely meets notability standards, no matter how spammy or COI-driven the prose. Fixing it is a matter of editing. The question here is whether this project is the subject of multiple pieces of independent and substantial coverage and it is. 771:

entirely factual information including project deliverables. Webinos is an “open source” project under an IPR free policy hence no one makes direct money from the project. It brings together major industry players working in this area on open source delivery. And equally important very detailed technical specifications have been agreed between these diverse industry players such as the

1670:

all projects produce publications, too. Only if those articles themselves generate large numbers of citations would this start to indicate notability. As most of these Framework projects only recently finished (or worse, only recently started), I don't think there will be many (perhaps none) that would have produced already now highly-cited papers. Does this make any sense? --

647:. All things considered, this is an evolving technology framework that is currently under development, has been (and is currently) debated by media, produces new things and is open for people to engage even at this early point. If the article needs/should be updated to depict current evolutions or amend verbal stipulations this is a valid point. 974:) all follow a pattern: they have no User page, they are obviously knowledgeable about the project, and they provide no COI information. They would appear to be the colleagues that GeorgioGI mentioned. If so, every contributor to the article has 100% conflict of interest. If the situation is otherwise, please provide correct information. 1734:. Also, some comments (like in case of other similar AfD discussions) seems to be biased against EU research projects and against the EU projects in general. I would like to recall that being the EU x Framework Programme project is not the valid reason for deletion, and comments like "Another EU research project." are not really helpful. 954:, who created the webinos article, answered a request for Conflict of Interest information by stating "I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry". That is to say, the COI level is 100%. The other contributors ( 931:: Requesting a Conflict of Interest statement from you is now appropriate. Do you have a professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to generate income or other value for you in the future? 204:

Europe's largest FP7 research and development projects. It is unfortunate to see such unfortunate activities on wikipedia from research peers. It probably makes a big bunch of EU projects and the Eurpoean Commission sad. I strongly object to the proposed deletion. Best regards. Truthprovider. 11:40, 3 August 2011 (CET).

406:"The Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (Fokus) in Germany is leading the effort, dubbed Webinos. It is a group of 22 organisations including mobile operators Deutsche Telekom and Telecom Italia, manufacturers such as Sony Ericsson and Samsung, and standards body the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)." 619:

establishing and sustaining a community. Up to now it has produced a number of industry reports and launched an affiliates programme for 3rd party engagement (both mentioned in the article). Additionally, several important specifications are anticipated by the projects shortly – i.e, according to the project's

1462:

Conversely, your sources may reflect third-party evaluation conducted objectively using reputable techniques. If webinos is noteworthy, such sources could support it. Thus more than a source count is needed. The rest of Carrite's response contributes only invective, so I will leave it to speak for itself.

539:

personalized, secure, and innovative applications. Under this prim, the consortium has an ongoing affiliate activity running aiming to bring to the project further expertise in the form of use-cases and requirements or through direct participate in the specification process and open source development.

1528:

of the existence of this project. Let me give an example. I hold an NIH grant. The paperwork, however, is not an agreement between the relevant NIH program officer and myself, but a document signed by representatives of NIH and CNRS, my employer. It would be rather misleading, however, to say that my

1418:

the University of Oxford Computer Science Dept., and the BBC. You, on the other hand, have nothing but a bunch of Assume Bad Faith COI charges and an obvious inability to grasp the concepts (1) of the policy of Assume Good Faith; (2) of the policy of No Personal Attacks; (3) of the function and daily

1190:

General Conflict? - GiorgioGI, who created the webinos article, answered a request for Conflict of Interest information by stating "I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry".

901:

has done some work today (and nothing else). There still are many problems: many missing wikilinks paragraphs without sources, citations to dead links, self-written blog entries, and web sites that have nothing to do with webinos, for example. It is still not clear to me what the project does, and I

534:

The webinos platform will directly address security and privacy issues as part of Quality of Service that users of web services expect. The addressed challenges comprise: how to provision and adapt security across a range of devices, services, networks as well as how individuals can gain control over

1991:

The project is probably notable, having received third party coverage, but I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that in order to be of use the article would need to be rewritten entirely in English rather than in PR-speak, preferably by a person not involved with the project, and mainly based on third party

1932:

I may well have overgeneralized DGG's statement to Cruzio, who first proposed deleting the webinos page, when DGG wrote that that "I accept your analysis." If so, I'm sorry that I did it, and I retract anything I said or implied that isn't so. Of course you don't have to answer any questions. You

1578:

I see your point, but I think you overrate the involvement of these different agencies. If I would want to apply for a Framework grant, I would look for colleagues with similar research interests in as many different EU countries as possible. I would then contact them and propose a collaboration. If

1553:

count towards notability, though it has been mistakenly argued from time to time. I'd never advocate it for articles like these--though it does matter for something more closely related, such as a journal or a prize. But that a considerable number of high powered institutions sponsor it, is another

1371:

page. Have you nothing of substance to bring to this discussion? I think the problem may be that things haven't gone your way so far and you blame me for it. Could my status as a Newbie be a factor? I am willing to talk about all such matters, but I ask that any personal disparagements appear on

1238:

Here's how I saw it. I suspected that what seemed like several opinions were actually one opinion expressed through several proxies, and that some or all of those involved had an undisclosed interest in the project, which should have been described from the beginning. If true, that would be a very

1155:

Now, now, Carrite. Joining this discussion in flame mode, as in "little Assume Bad Faith shenanigans", will not improve the likelihood of a beneficial outcome. Nor, I'm sure, would you wish to stand behind the assumption of bad faith implicit in that characterization! This page has been the scene

2061:

define COI as occurring when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge (XXG)". So the problem is not Interest but Conflict. The guidelines strongly encourage editors to describe any relevant Interests, but do not require it; and they strongly

1849:

We are counseled to assume good faith unless facts show otherwise. I had some doubts about the original contributors, but they addressed those doubts by forthrightly describing their interests, which having been stated are not problematic. The only relevant question is whether the webinos article

1596:

evaluated by a committee of specialists convened by the Framework organization, not by the different "partner organizations". I apologize for going in such detail on these procedures, but the workings of academia are sometimes rather arcane and very few people outside of research are aware of these

1331:

I'm not threatening you with anything. I don't run to mama when I think somebody is flaunting the clearly established rules, I make sure they know what they are and get a good taste of them. If they're still gonna violate them, that's on them. You're not the one closing this debate, fortunately, so

1115:

When I wrote the preceding Comment, I did not know how the deletion process works at the administrator level. I imagined that a deletion was like a content change, in which one of the participants eventually takes the point and does what appears to be necessary; except that the participant doing a

992:

Yes, I am also a university researcher who works on (amongst other things) the webinos project. Before being kindly encouraged to take up a username, I was also editing under IP addresses 129.67.151.47 and 129.67.119.240. My edits were attempts to neaten up the page and rephrase to be neutral and

1669:

directly - just as we do with an academic who does not passes WP:PROF itself). I would not take the existence of an academic article as evidence of notability, not even if the whole article was about the project itself. The reason is simple and again analogous to WP:PROF: all academics publish, so

1274:

I concluded that I had been correct: GiorgioGI and his colleagues, as he himself had described, were all chiming in, creating the effect of a body of opinion where actually only one opinion existed. I think that my investigation was honorably conducted and obtained some vital information. It did

1256:

I inferred that the unnamed colleagues that GeorgioGI said are continuing to work on the article, were the people who had indeed continued to work on the article. I described that as an an inference and asked for any correction; none was received. One person replied by describing his own COI and

564:

So it's a crappy article... That's not the discussion here, of course. What we are interested in is whether the subject of this article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for inclusion-worthiness: being the subject of multiple, substantial, independently published sources. Webinos meets the General

1909:

could be solved by editing/rewriting, and not necessarily by deleting. My remark that some comments are biased (and it still seems that certain bias exists) was not an argument for keeping the article, but just recalling, that being the Framework Programme project IS NOT a reason for deletion and

1461:

Using the term literally, your sources actually have been impeached: by the claim, currently unresolved, that they are little more than webinos marketing releases massaged to have the style of the outlet that disseminated them. Webinos might be noteworthy, but such sources would not support it.

1183:

New Conflict? - To User:Dsr23: Requesting a Conflict of Interest statement from you is now appropriate. Do you have a professional relationship with the Webinos project? If so, what is that relationship? Is it a paid or volunteer relationship? If the latter, does the project have any potential to

1027:

Hey, its good to hear some straight talk at last! I don't think that anyone disputes the value of the webinos project itself, and nothing precludes a person from writing an article about something they have a personal or even financial interest in. Few would suffer the rigors of Knowledge (XXG)

618:

by Mozilla. It is not ephemeral effort nor it has just started. The project has committed to provide its results (software components, specifications) under an open source schema, adopt and contribute to standardization working groups and continue its existence after the initial 3-year period by

546:

like this are the typed equivalent of a mountebank's handwaving. Prose like this is intended to impress and distract rather than inform. With text like this, notability is a non-issue; even if this were a notable project, the article still needs to be deleted and rewritten from the beginning in

481:

No, it doesn't make any difference. If four publications published four different interviews with John Smith about the new five wheeled bicycles he was building, the material they published could only have come from John Smith, bicycle builder — and Smith the Bicycle Builder would meet standards.

262:

The question is not whether the project is significant, which it appears to be, but whether the article is encyclopedic, which it is not: it is a press release. Looking at the External Links, you've got your Website, your Facebook page, your Twitter feed, and your LinkedIn group; and here's your

770:

I am a researcher for a partner in the webinos project and along with my colleagues in the project team we have worked in the last few days to update the webinos entry, as per wikipedia guidelines, with more than factsheet information that was the base for the first version. It now consists of

1495:

but rewrite to remove the jargon. The initial presumption would be that a project with such distiguished sponsorship is likely to be notable, but we need references referring to the overall output of the project. It's not even clear to me from the article whether the project is in the beginning

1292:

I don't see that anger, obscenities, aspersions, and threats of retribution, whether or not these could be regarded as flaming, can help with the situation here. What this debate needs is opinions that relate to the article. Perhaps you could accomplish more by answering the questions I asked

1811:, the originator of this deletion proposal. Beagel's contribution does not mention any supporting reasons for keeping the webinos page, but only implies that opposition to keeping it (and others like it) reflects bias against EU projects, rather than the reasons stated by the several opponents. 454:

Does it make any difference that the many sources referenced could have obtained their information only from the Webinos project itself? Who else could provide it? It is all the same information, repeated in every available format. This is the signature of a Marketing blitz: surely a valid

203:

It is surprising, saddening, and very dissapointing to see a person apparently being a director in a French research institute (ref wiki User Crusio) to come up with such in-considerate comments and strong desire to delete an indeed very objective and well-written wikipedia entry for one of

1366:

You provide no answers to my questions, employ insulting characterizations, represent my support of the guidelines as a culpable violation of them, state as a rejoinder something we all agree on, and describe as allegations COI statements that the parties themselves provided. You have three

1041:

If one research project could have a Knowledge (XXG) article, every research project in the world would want one too. The result for Knowledge (XXG) would be catastrophic! I suspect that all the project-specific European Union research pages will be merged into more encompassing pages like

538:

The objective is the development of a secure application platform that facilitates the creation of applications for multiple heterogeneous devices and operating systems, overcomes restrictions implied by proprietary and vendor-specific technologies, and enables the rapid creation of more

1332:

don't go prancing around like this matter is settled. It's not. We're here to determine whether this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA-WORTHY TOPIC according to notability guidelines. I've got four unimpeached sources above. You've got a bunch of COI allegations. We'll see how this turns out, eh?

2092:, and otherwise conforming to Knowledge (XXG) guidelines? Notability is often subjective, and the line between description and advertising is even more so. Opinions can differ radically, as the above Discussion shows. The guidelines about references that you asked for are 1529:

project is "sponsored by NIH and CNRS". The situation here is not different. Researchers working at these different "partners" jointly applied for a Framework grant. That's all. So in this rare case I have to disagree with DGG about the presumption of notability here. --

434:- Very clearly this is a significant technology initiative that is the subject of multiple examples of substantial coverage in independently-produced publications. Passes GNG and I wouldn't be surprised if the snowflakes start to fall on this questionable nomination. 902:

have done computer networking for 40 years. It says "Apps" which means downloads to smart phones, but also jumps around to very different environments of Linux and televisions. Not sure if it is meant to obfuscate or just badly written. There also is too much

1897:. I fully agree with all these comments, particularly about rewriting to remove all PR jargon. So, I don't understand what you are talking about 'DGG later changed that input'? As I commented that I will sign from my side above-mentioned comments by 1583:

of the application is correct and whether the proposed budget is sufficient to cover the cost of the project (as these things can get very complicated, these singing officials are often invaluable in finalizing this part of the application). They

1092:

at their word, the outcome for this page seems clear. I wish that someone would begin the process of actually deleting this page and its many equivalents, which where flagged have fared much as this page has. More encompassing pages, like

1910:

that comments about this like I cited in my original comment, are not helpful in the AfD process. I also never implied that opposing keeping this article reflects bias against the EU. This is not a good faith interpretation of my comment.

587:

If you think you can extract actual information from this text, there it is: have at it. My contrary impression is that it is vague, meaningless, and uneditable, so confusing that nobody can be expected to follow it --- in other words,

879:, particularly the guidelines about advertising. More are being flagged as they are discovered. Vigorous debate ensues in each case, with the writers of the articles often reappearing as vociferous opponents of deletion. 1836:. My own bias strongly favors EU telecom and network projects, because I resent the way the US has manipulated international developments to further its own hegemony. I suspect that the "bad reputation" that 2062:

discourage Interested parties from editing, but do not preclude it. What seems to matter is not the creation process but the result of that process. An article is itself, no matter who or where it came from.

150: 1523:

mean that the direction/leadership of these organizations at one point sat together and decided to undertake a joint project. It does not even mean that the upper echelons of these organizations are even

1957: 1821: 1708: 1094: 1043: 1028:

editing if they did not have a specific interest. The problem is just that a page about a research project does not meet Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Being worthy is unrelated to being encyclopedic.

614:- it may be an EU backed research project but primarily it constitutes a research effort in a heavily debated domain - web applications running across connected devices such as for example 1862:, to address that question by citing guidelines and showing how they support Beagel's views, particularly where others appear to have used those same guidelines to support opposing views. 592:--- in addition to the neutrality issue. FWIW, lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Spam and nonsense can get deleted even if a case for notability could be made. - 1625:

I accept your analysis, For some of the projects, it's very clear that there's not much substance. But as a guide, can you specify any that do cross the borderline into notability?

702: 1257:

offering to work constructively with Knowledge (XXG). I replied to him that COI does not preclude a person from writing an article, the only question being the article itself.

111: 1239:

important thing to know when this article is evaluated. My approach was formally investigative, and it quickly got an answer from GiorgioGI, who described his COI in detail.

863:- This Webinos article should not be seen in isolation. One or more European consortia have a stated policy of using Knowledge (XXG) as a publicity tool, following these 725: 635:. In terms of external referencing the project’s approach on web application across connected devices has already been discussed by several accredited media worldwide 679: 1275:

not cast aspersions on anyone. Neither did it ignore my initial and plausible suspicion that conflict existed. Assuming good will does mean blindfolding oneself.

144: 1592:, not scientists, and the different grant applications crossing their desks may cover a vast range of disciplines). The scientific part of the grant itself is 1665:

as a guidance. I'd accept as notable projects that have direct and significant coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers and such (because of a pass of

232:

Instead of lamenting my behavior and attitudes, your argument would carry more weight if you would base it in policy. Please have a look at Knowledge (XXG)'s

1964:

every individual project. Others would go further and simply Delete this page, but that might fail to give credence where it is due; the approach used for

1293:

previously. I think that much could be learned by comparing and contrasting your conclusions with the very different conclusions that others draw from

1519:

The "sponsoring" is an argument that has come up during several AfDs of European research projects. It is misleading. "Sponsoring" in these cases does

623:(page 17) an extensive set of webinos APIs allowing web application to access devices resource by adopting and extending underlying open standards by 636: 308: 2093: 819:. However, the fact that the two major contributers to this article promptly deleted their accounts after firing a final parting shot is damning.-- 1116:

deletion would also have to be an administrator. Evaluating a discussion of deletion from an independent perspective is obviously preferable.

336:

I realize that many people ignore all bloggish types of material in AfD discussions, but there are substantial blog sources out there, such as

220: 2012:

Lots of sources, basically no reliable 3rd party sources that actually discuss the subject of the article. Notability is not transitive.

668: 848: 1597:

issues, causing misleading impressions. In the case of Framework programs, it all sounds much more impressive than it actually is. --

515:

encouraging the creation of these articles. Whatever else can be said about the project, the text of the current article is full of

17: 2032: 799: 664: 868: 264: 486:

sources — it is not a requirement for the subject to be completely isolated from the actual content which is published.

337: 2124: 1097:, can be extended as needed to describe the underlying research initiatives, whose notability has not been questioned. 36: 898: 165: 84: 79: 2097: 816: 132: 1707:, with similar Deletion discussions except that members of the projects did not much appear, have been merged into 88: 216: 49: 780: 2123:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

71: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

903: 2085: 787: 640: 208: 1757: 1205:

You're just lucky you don't get your ass run to ANI for garbage like that... Here's some reading for you:

844: 212: 1960:, thus continuing to document the EU project initiatives while eliminating the use of Knowledge (XXG) to 1588:

evaluate the science (and in my experience, almost never even read the science part; after all, they are

126: 44:

The result was Delete as not having sufficient sourcing to satisfy the general notability guideline.

2058: 620: 589: 524: 1961: 1841: 864: 512: 2105: 2036: 1977: 1938: 1867: 1716: 1467: 1381: 1373: 1306: 1161: 1121: 1102: 1051: 998: 979: 955: 936: 884: 756: 460: 272: 45: 791: 776: 656: 648: 520: 122: 1074: 967: 911: 795: 775:.The project results are also receiving strong media coverage, as for example the lately published 660: 158: 2109: 2048: 2021: 2004: 1981: 1942: 1919: 1906: 1871: 1789: 1761: 1743: 1720: 1679: 1636: 1606: 1565: 1538: 1507: 1471: 1428: 1385: 1341: 1310: 1221: 1184:

generate income or other value for you in the future? Ornithikos (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1165: 1146: 1125: 1106: 1078: 1069:: After all of these keep !votes that bring nothing to the discussion, this is still non-notable. 1055: 1014: 983: 940: 915: 888: 853: 828: 803: 760: 740: 717: 694: 651: 600: 574: 555: 495: 464: 443: 416: 379: 349: 323: 299: 276: 249: 194: 53: 2040: 2017: 1006: 824: 643:

which might have gotten info by press releases but has also received critic by the authors as in

2089: 1855: 1294: 928: 876: 237: 2071:

Here is a thought experiment could help detect conflict. Suppose another project existed, say

951: 815:

Its a little troubling that people have institutionalized a policy of using Knowledge (XXG) to

172: 1753: 1424: 1337: 1217: 1142: 839: 736: 713: 690: 570: 491: 439: 412: 375: 345: 319: 295: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

1778: 1662: 516: 2044: 1915: 1786: 1739: 1675: 1602: 1534: 1010: 1002: 971: 963: 597: 552: 313:"A pan-European project aimed at developing common standards for application development..." 245: 190: 1902: 1858:. Reasonable people might differ on such a question. I ask Beagel, as I unavailingly did 1851: 1774: 1666: 1298: 1209: 1206: 1089: 994: 959: 872: 565:

Notability Guideline, quite clearly. Fixing the article is a matter of fixing the article.

233: 182: 2101: 1973: 1934: 1882: 1863: 1712: 1496:

stages of establishing scope, or has completed its work by publishing the reports listed.

1463: 1377: 1302: 1157: 1117: 1098: 1047: 975: 932: 880: 752: 456: 268: 1995: 1070: 907: 2013: 1901:, I don't have to answer any other questions. There are several good sources to meet 1632: 1561: 1503: 820: 311:

details the Webinos project receiving €10M in funding. The project is described as a

138: 1859: 1420: 1368: 1333: 1213: 1138: 732: 709: 686: 566: 487: 435: 408: 371: 341: 315: 291: 75: 1088:

Counting all participants in the project as one source of opinion, and taking the

105: 2084:

Everything comes down to one question: does the article follow the principles in

1890:

has made three comments in this discussion page–all of them are valid, including

644: 401: 1956:- I believe that this page (and the many others like it) should be merged into 1911: 1837: 1817: 1808: 1800: 1782: 1735: 1671: 1598: 1530: 1414:

Like I say, I've got links to 4 unimpeached sources above, including the London

593: 548: 241: 186: 772: 1844:. However, objection to a specific deed does not show bias towards the doer. 181:

Ephemeral project, only just started. No independent sources. Does not meet

1046:. Articles about such large-scale programs can easily meet the guidelines. 367: 1898: 1887: 1824:

shows no bias and has grown recently to encompass EU projects similar to

1804: 1731: 1627: 1556: 1498: 543: 628: 1825: 67: 59: 1816:

This claim is implausible. The originator of this deletion proposal,

1820:, is a leading European researcher in an unrelated field. The page 1661:

Difficult to say. As you said, perhaps we should take analogies to

633:

something which of course should be depicted in the present article

511:, vehemently. Another EU research project. Note that there is an 2039:) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) -- sorry, that was a comment by me, 1969: 1965: 1833: 1829: 1807:, but DGG later changed that input after discussions (above) with 1704: 1700: 2117:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1958: