587:: 19nov2014: Claim has been made that this article reads like an advertisement. Looking up the guidelines on this I quote: "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." This article is not about a product and not about a company. It is about a collaboration project. Hence I consider the advertisement argument not applicable. If I am wrong, please provide the argument. To be fully transparent: I am an astronomical researchers that is also affiliated with the Target project. Me and other researchers at the University of Groningen have really benefitted from the non-commercial research and development by the Target collaboration. Gervankleef
526:
also replaced the failed reference on "Classical
Astronomy Pipelines", by an independent reference which gives an overview of the pipelines used in 30 years of NASA missions. Finally, I added an independent reference to the section of Technology Results, but it needs more. I don't want to mislead anyone, so note that I too have a link with the Target project (almost all scientists interested in Big Data in the Netherlands will be associated in some way with Target or the National e-Science Centre or both). However, I'm not a co-author on any of the references quoted in the article and I'm certainly not paid to write Knowledge articles.
708:
order to show that this is not reporting original research (although I'd personally remove the section on
Technological Findings) and that it has at least national notability. So I'd like to know what still needs to be improved. If the article can never be acceptable because some of the principle contributors are involved in the project then I'd rather know that now and we can all stop wasting our time. Currently, IMHO the article in its present form does not seem to contain any "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment", but if it still needs more independent scientific references or more references to show notability I could add these.
525:
I added three references to papers using Target technology in refereed journals (which have been cited more than the other referenced papers). But note that these papers all have some authors associated with the Target project (unlike the set I added yesterday, which had no Target related authors). I
694:
Added extra (non-affiliated) references. This includes one showing the origin of WISE in a pan-European project (the OPTICON Optical
Infrared Coordination Network) which was as set up to consider a standardised European survey system to facilitate research from the current generation of wide field
631:
I think there is a misunderstanding here. This is an article about the Target
Project and its technology (WISE). It was explicitly and deliberately not meant to be about Target Holding, which is an entirely separate entity. The names may cause some confusion, but Target Holding has exactly the same
567:
Something obviously went a bit wrong in the previous discussion. One comment and one vote attributed to me, was not in fact made by me! So I edited the previous discussion to reflect this. I will add some more reference from groups which use Target technology, but which are not part of the project
707:
I think there is a concensus that the early drafts of this article were not acceptable since it was writtenm in a style that resembled an advertisment. But several contibutors since then have extensively re-written the article to avoid this. Moroever a large number of references have been added in
331:
I added references (written by authors not affiliated the Target project) on the use of the technology developed by this project to the Euclid Dark Energy missions and to the Muse instrument. This goes some way to correcting the lack of third-party sources. In order to establish notability I added
722:
I've removed that from the rationale, let's stop that discussion. I'll leave the notability question open for others to comment. I actually think that more independent news sources would be a better addition to establish social/political relevance; scientific papers are going to be written by
465:
Your addition clearly establishes the eScience center as collaborating with the Target project, and IBM as being a supplier of technology, so both are affiliated sources. But the newspapers can be good sources, I guess; I'll check them as soon as I'm back behind the paywall.
659:'s cherry-picking from that page, using a narrow definition of "company". I'm not confused as to the relation of the company and the project. I was merely pointed out that it was written in the style of an advertisement, regardless of what is being advertised.
598:, it's "an association or collection of individuals, whether natural persons, legal persons, or a mixture of both." That's obviously the case here; Target Holding is also a company in the narrower sense, and the Target Project in fact employs a PR person,
180:
212:
Looks like someone copy-pasted a white paper. This article is filled with buzzwords and promises, and cites only affiliated sources. Even those that have passed peer review have been cited a handful of times at
361:
Added a reference to an article (Nature genetics, June 2014) about the Genome of the
Netherlands Project, which used the infrastructure of Target to conduct whole-genome sequencing analysis.
308:
I removed a lot of the promotional language in the introduction and history area. There are few third-party sources, and none the talk about the project qua project. I'm not sure this meets
300:
This is a very large, early, multi-disciplinary e-Science project that needs to be covered. Added a section on technological results and a number of references. Removed promotional phrasing.
257:
133:
174:
735:, but couldn't find anything in their online archives (I don't have access to LexisNexis from here). Computable, cited in the article, is an example of a good news source.
277:
237:
550:
Note: I struck duplicate !votes by User:Sautekai and User:TravellingCelt above. Only one !vote is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like.
606:
forbids "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."
140:
577:
348:
106:
101:
110:
368:
395:
Added another external reference mentioning the Target project ( the annual report of the
Netherlands Research School for Astronomy)
93:
760:
Added two more references from
Computable. One dealing with the Target infrastructure, the other dealing with the economic impact.
632:
role in Target as IBM and ORACLE. So noting that Target
Holding is a company is no more relevant than noting that IBM is a company.
195:
162:
17:
156:
53:
667:, which is a nonnegotiable Knowledge policy, so splitting hairs over what is what is not a company is irrelevant.
796:
568:(e.g. TACC, Austin). There are also some television interviews, could these be useful to demonstrate notability?
152:
40:
749:
681:
620:
602:, making it indistinguishable from other types of companies. Non-commercial vs. commercial doesn't matter, as
573:
559:
516:
480:
460:
440:
419:
392:
376:
352:
344:
321:
289:
269:
249:
229:
75:
406:
Added another web reference by a third party (eScience center, Amsterdam, Netherlands) to the Target project
372:
202:
67:
777:
761:
709:
696:
569:
527:
340:
792:
556:
97:
36:
656:
449:
428:
407:
396:
364:
336:
309:
188:
168:
744:
676:
615:
511:
475:
456:
436:
415:
388:
224:
58:
660:
652:
603:
427:
Added two more external web references ( Case studies published by IBM) to the Target project
285:
265:
245:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
791:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
538:
317:
89:
81:
773:
728:
695:
survey cameras. I think this puts the technology developed in an historical context.
664:
769:
736:
724:
668:
607:
599:
503:
499:
495:
467:
452:
432:
411:
384:
216:
281:
261:
241:
127:
332:
references to some news articles which have appeared in the
Netherlands media.
313:
541:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
595:
723:
affiliated researchers in the case of so recent a project. I searched
448:
Added an external reference to the Target project by Bits&Chips
732:
785:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
123:
119:
115:
187:
555:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
258:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
799:). No further edits should be made to this page.
278:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
201:
8:
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
256:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:Note: This debate has been included in the
238:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
362:
275:
255:
235:
647:. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment
312:, but I'm not familiar with the topic.
7:
24:
594:Looking at our own definition of
768:Added references to articles in
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
750:19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
682:16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
621:10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
560:03:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
517:11:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
481:11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
461:11:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
441:11:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
420:09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
393:09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
377:15:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
353:14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
322:02:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
76:15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
663:aside, this is forbidden by
290:02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
270:02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
250:02:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
230:10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
215:Notability not established.
816:
788:Please do not modify it.
498:has a clear and present
32:Please do not modify it.
502:; see their user page.
776:discuss OmegaCAM.
655:. I was replying to
500:conflict of interest
651:" is forbidden by
548:Relisting comment:
48:The result was
748:
740:
680:
672:
619:
611:
562:
515:
507:
479:
471:
379:
367:comment added by
356:
339:comment added by
292:
272:
252:
228:
220:
74:
54:non-admin closure
807:
790:
742:
738:
674:
670:
613:
609:
554:
543:
509:
505:
473:
469:
355:
333:
222:
218:
206:
205:
191:
143:
131:
113:
90:Target (project)
82:Target (project)
72:
70:
64:
34:
815:
814:
810:
809:
808:
806:
805:
804:
803:
797:deletion review
786:
536:
334:
214:
148:
139:
104:
88:
85:
68:
63:
59:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
813:
811:
802:
801:
781:
780:
778:TravellingCelt
765:
764:
762:TravellingCelt
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
715:
714:
713:
712:
710:TravellingCelt
702:
701:
700:
699:
697:TravellingCelt
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
645:doesn't matter
636:
635:
634:
633:
626:
625:
624:
623:
589:
588:
570:TravellingCelt
565:
564:
563:
552:
551:
545:
544:
533:
532:
531:
528:TravellingCelt
522:
521:
520:
519:
486:
485:
484:
483:
443:
422:
400:
399:
381:
380:
358:
357:
341:TravellingCelt
325:
324:
302:
301:
294:
293:
273:
253:
211:
209:
208:
145:
84:
79:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
812:
800:
798:
794:
789:
783:
782:
779:
775:
771:
770:volkskrant.nl
767:
766:
763:
759:
758:
751:
746:
741:
734:
730:
726:
725:volkskrant.nl
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
711:
706:
705:
704:
703:
698:
693:
692:
691:
690:
683:
678:
673:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
630:
629:
628:
627:
622:
617:
612:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
586:
583:
582:
581:
579:
575:
571:
561:
558:
553:
549:
546:
542:
540:
535:
534:
529:
524:
523:
518:
513:
508:
501:
497:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
482:
477:
472:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
451:
450:WP:NOTABILITY
447:
444:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:WP:NOTABILITY
426:
423:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:WP:NOTABILITY
405:
402:
401:
398:
397:WP:NOTABILITY
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
360:
359:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
330:
327:
326:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:WP:NOTABILITY
307:
304:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
226:
221:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
142:
138:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
71:
66:
65:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
787:
784:
648:
644:
584:
566:
557:NorthAmerica
547:
537:
491:
445:
424:
403:
369:129.125.6.39
363:— Preceding
335:— Preceding
328:
305:
297:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
136:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
657:Gervankleef
649:of any kind
175:free images
661:WP:SOAPBOX
653:WP:SOAPBOX
604:WP:SOAPBOX
60:Rcsprinter
793:talk page
772:and that
306:Weak keep
282:• Gene93k
262:• Gene93k
242:• Gene93k
37:talk page
795:or in a
739:VVERTYVS
733:trouw.nl
671:VVERTYVS
610:VVERTYVS
600:Sautekai
578:contribs
539:Relisted
506:VVERTYVS
496:Sautekai
470:VVERTYVS
453:Sautekai
433:Sautekai
412:Sautekai
385:Sautekai
365:unsigned
349:contribs
337:unsigned
219:VVERTYVS
134:View log
69:(confer)
39:or in a
665:WP:NPOV
596:company
181:WP refs
169:scholar
107:protect
102:history
774:nrc.nl
729:nrc.nl
314:LaMona
153:Google
111:delete
213:best.
196:JSTOR
157:books
141:Stats
128:views
120:watch
116:links
16:<
731:and
585:Keep
574:talk
492:Note
457:talk
446:Keep
437:talk
425:Keep
416:talk
404:Keep
389:talk
373:talk
345:talk
329:Keep
318:talk
298:Keep
286:talk
266:talk
246:talk
189:FENS
163:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
50:keep
745:hm?
677:hm?
643:It
616:hm?
512:hm?
476:hm?
225:hm?
203:TWL
132:– (
62:123
52:. (
727:,
580:)
576:•
494::
459:)
439:)
431:.
418:)
410:.
391:)
375:)
351:)
347:•
320:)
288:)
280:.
268:)
260:.
248:)
240:.
183:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
56:)
747:)
743:(
737:Q
679:)
675:(
669:Q
618:)
614:(
608:Q
572:(
530:.
514:)
510:(
504:Q
478:)
474:(
468:Q
455:(
435:(
414:(
387:(
371:(
343:(
316:(
284:(
264:(
244:(
227:)
223:(
217:Q
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
137:·
130:)
92:(
73:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.