Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive Services Grid

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Services Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "Ephemeral project/technique. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.". DePRODded with reason "Contest prod. Over two hundred results in Google Scholar with some of the articles cited hundreds of times." However, few of the articles seem to be about the ASG and those don't seem to be cited very heavily at all. Crusio (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Google searches appear to turn up only primary or trivial sources. Msnicki (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another article about a minor EU research project described in meaningless but rosy sounding bafflegab: an approach to achieving agility and adaptiveness in service-oriented architecture (SOA) using semantic services. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete. Clearly each paper nor buzzword combo does not deserve its own article. I was going to suggest putting it into the Sixth Framework Programme article, but that is just a redirect anyway to the overall Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development for the whole line of government waste, er, I mean "research" programmes. Not sure there is anything worth merging. I just checked, and the journal link given inthe article dead, although I found one that worked. The preprint is in English, not German, but full of the same buzzwords. The web site is still there, but not updated since 2007. I would say now just delete. Alas, there seem to be many other similar articles on one-shot projects and even Category:FP6 Projects. BEinGRID is less stubby, being the largest project evidently. AssessGrid only has website, ARGUGRID up for prod, Akogrimo only web site, I-maestro only has web site, Update (FP-6 Project) was a table but no source except moribund 2009 web site, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• undecided I am not sure what the standard for notability should be. I would expect the evidence for notability is what has been written about the work produced, not what has been written about the program as a program, This is analogous to the way we judge researchers in WP:PROF, where we do not ask that something need be written about a researcher as a person, just that it be written about their published work. With researchers, this is judged by the citations to their articles. Now, the standard is not the extremely weak GNG standard, for then any paper that had two or more references discussing the work substantially would be notable, any researcher producing such a paper would be notable, every research grant that produced such papers is notable, that every program of grants that leads to them is similarly notable, that every department and sub-epartmental program producing such papers is notable. (In general, not all the references to a paper discuss the work substantially; some will be no more than citations of all possible references, but some will have substantial discussions of the work. We normally do not analyze the references in such detail, but we could--I think in most fields about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would be substantial.) So if we apply the GNG here, we'd get a result, which I-- and undoubtedly Crusio -- think is ridiculously broad. (I note that the guideline for books does accept this standard: any book with two or more substantial reviews in discriminating sources is notable. This could perhaps be justified by considering a book a more substantial work than an individual paper.) With researchers , using WP:PROF, we generally consider that the totality of references must be sufficient to show the research an authority in his subject. Essentially, we judge this by comparison with other researchers in the field, and we use such additional considerations as academic status, status of the institution,and status of the journals in which published and cited--the same criteria as used in the academic world for tenure decisions. It works: almost always , we find agreement here--the great majority of AfDs using WP:PROF reach a clear consensus. I do not know what we could use here as an equivalent. I do not even know whether we should aim for a broad or narrow inclusion: it would be possible to argue that broad inclusion would provide people with links to related work. (I prefer to say that broad inclusion would yield to excessive duplication, and the place for bringing together related work is in the article on the subject investigated.) What I think we need is a discussion on a notability standard, which would include a clear statement that it supersedes the GNG in both a positive and negative direction, and that these and the related AfDs be closed until we have such a standard. I know that at AfD the literal use of the GNG is usually used to justify deletion, but in actuality, as applied to anything where there is extensive published work, it leads to justification of extremely broad inclusion. (I have avoided arguing that way when it makes no sense to me, but I've certainly been tempted to use arguments like the above to show the absurdity of the GNG standard.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with DGG's thoughts. We do need a guideline here. As it is, many people appear to vote "keep" in this kind of debates solely on the grounds that a project has been mentioned a couple of times in academic publications (akin to citations to a researcher's work). It seems strange that our standards for projects (concerning, after all, a group of researchers) would be so much more lax than WP:PROF. As far as I can see, almost none of these research projects are notable, although their participants often are and their results may be useful to source/improves articles on those particular topics. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (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.