User:Guillaume2303/Notability of research projects

These are some notes/remarks concerning the notability of research projects. This may seem biased towards EU Framework Programmes-funded projects, but that is mainly due to the fact that editors rarely create articles on other research projects. This is probably because Framework officials push grantees to make as much publicity as possible. See also this offsite canvassing project.

For the moment, I just copy/paste here arguments brought forward at AfDs of such projects, in a more or less random order, with the hope that at a later stage I'll be able to make a more coherent essay out of it.

Obviously, if a project meets WP:GNG, then it is notable. For that, we need multiple reliable sources that actually are about the project (not just an aside mention in an article about something else - for instance, when a project participant is being asked her/his opinion about some related issue: "Dr. Jones, coordinator of the EU project FOO, said...")

It's not a "European Commission project"

 * It is incorrect to say that this is a project "chosen ... by the commission" if with "commission" you mean the European Commission. That commission put the Framework Programme in place. Individual projects are evaluated by commissions of specialists and the funding decision is taken by the Framework organisation. What you are saying is akin to saying that some NIH or NSF-funded project has been "selected by President Obama". It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do. Again, it's the Framework organisation that does these things, just as in the US it would be NSF or NIH, not Obama. The statement that all these projects are notable just because they have been selected from among many more applications is untenable either. NIH funding rates are below 10% at this moment and nobody is arguing that each and every one of their funded projects is notable. Just as individual NIH/NSF projects are very rarely notable, EU-funded projects will be rarely notable, too.

A discussion with DGG

 * Comment The "sponsoring" is an argument that has come up during several AfDs of European research projects. It is misleading. "Sponsoring" in these cases does not 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 aware 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 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. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * right, individual sponsorship by an agency does not 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 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.  DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 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 administrative part 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 never evaluate the science (and in my experience, almost never even read the science part; after all, they are administrators, 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 only 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 issues, causing misleading impressions. In the case of Framework programs, it all sounds much more impressive than it actually is. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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?  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Difficult to say. As you said, perhaps we should take analogies to WP:PROF 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 WP:GNG 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 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? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from DGG at ERCIM AfD: That a group of organizations are notable, does not mean that ever project undertaken by the group is notable. Even notable organizations do non-notable things, and engage in non-notable joint projects. This is not exactly NOTINHERITED, but just common sense.

Typical for project articles

 * Typically created by a single-purpose account with few if any unrelated edits. If there are edits to different articles, it generally is to insert links to the article on the project.
 * Typically very long on the organization of the project and on their plans, equally typical, generally short on accomplishments (or wildly exaggerating the importance of their results).
 * Comment posted by Smerdis of Tlön in a deletion debate: "most of the articles created as a result of the offsite canvassing to promote these projects have a deeper problem than notability.  They are created by the proponents, and as such tend to be written in very "forward looking" and promotional grant application bafflegab rather than English.  They're full of grand unreferenced claims about what they hope to achieve, but are deliberately uninformative."
 * Generally horribly overcategorized: often included in the categories "Research", "Science and technology in Europe", and "European Union and science and technology", for example.