Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEEMPubS (EU 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. v/r - TP 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SEEMPubS (EU 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)
DePRODded article. PROD reason was "More Eurospam. No independent sources. No indication of notability. Does not meet any notability guideline including WP:GNG." This still holds, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: some miscellaneous notes on this kind of projects (not necessarily all applicable to this case) can be found here. --Crusio (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article differ from for example this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMET_(EU_project) Please be more specific in your reason. --Povlsen (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP has over 3 million articles and certainly not all of them satisfy all necessary policies and guidelines. So the fact that something similar exists is not an argument to keep this article (we call that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). That project obviously is also non-notable, so I have just PRODded it. --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another in the series of EU research projects. This one is also written in very vague and forward looking terms that doesn't really convey information:
SEEMPubS will make use of the service-oriented middleware for embedded systems being developed in another EU project, the Hydra project and use its potential to create services and applications across heterogeneous devices to develop an energy-aware platform. The SEEMPubS platform will provide necessary functionality and tools to add energy efficiency features to monitor dynamic sensor data in real time, taking advantage of natural resources (like daylight and solar energy) and controlling the operation of both passive and active environmental systems to ensure the best possible comfort conditions with the most efficient use of energy.
What is this really about? Software to turn the lights on and off? If that's what it means, the article should say' "software to turn the lights on and off", and no one would be deceived about whether it represents the sort of leap forward that belongs in an encyclopedia or not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In the absence of evidence of notable achieved outcome from this project (as opposed to reference to the software being used in the project), an article is at best premature. The Prod was declined on grounds "Not to much written about the project yet since it it ongoing. But 2.9 million Euros of the EU citizens tax money is being spent on this project so it should be of interest to have an article about it". While EU Research expenditure is one of the issues which has drawn negative comment from the EU auditors in their longstanding inability to sign-off, that situation is already covered under European_Union#Budget and articles on individual lines of expenditure are excessive here unless they gain specific notability. AllyD (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 15 November 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.