Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PERSIST FP7 Project

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. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERSIST FP7 Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Disputed proposed deletion. This article is yet another of a series of minor academic projects that apparently involve computing, sponsored under the aegis of the European Government. For a prior deletion involving a host of similar articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insemtives.

This article certainly seems to describe a project with grand and vague aims:

The objective of PERSIST is to develop Personal Smart Spaces that provide a minimum set of functionalities which can be extended and enhanced as users encounter other smart spaces during their everyday activities. They will be capable of learning and reasoning about users, their intentions, preferences and context. They will be endowed with pro-active behaviours, which enable them to share context information with neighbouring Personal Smart Spaces, resolve conflicts between the preferences of multiple users....

But no references are given and no notability is shown. Searching for "PERSIST FP7 Project" yields too many false positives to be useful, but the full version, "Personalised Self-improving Smart Spaces", draws a blank on both Google News and Google Scholar. The project is not notable; the page itself is unintelligibly vague while being promotional in tone. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROD deleter and restorer. The article is unreferenced, lacks a good assertion of notability, and has shown no improvement since its deletion/undeletion via Prod. If an administrator had an option to NOT restore a Prod to mainspace, I would have insisted it be userified for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Creator of article has made no improvements to the page despite requests from other editors. One editor, not myself, labelled the page: "Part of a walled garden of articles on apparent EU computer science research projects, none of which show organizational notability or even minimal importance. This one is vague to the point of meaninglessness." I agree. I really do not understand what the Project is myself. The whole thing reeks of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been .... wait for it! ... me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right - I didn't take the credit but I must give props where due. Smerdis of Tlön is THE ONE. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While some research projects will leave a certain trail of paper etc. before they take off and getting it financed is already an accomplishment, any discussion about notability and terminology (see elsewhere as linked above) has to consider truly secondary sources that are disconnected from the formal funding and evaluation process, both to show that it has actually been 'noted' by somebody who isn't part of the process, and also to provide a more measured and terminologically accessible assessment of their possible (or preferably actual) outcome respectively impact, than necessarily done for a research proposal. And i don't see that here. This site is not intended as a directory of ongoing research projects. Maybe there exists an alternate outlet or it is yet to be created.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2009 (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.