Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COST-TERRA


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

COST-TERRA

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable project, no independent sources. COST actions are low budget grants, only covering some travel expenses to stimulate collaboration between participants. The references (further reading) present in this article are almost all from before the project started, the others are not independent (or -in one case- don't exist yet) and just show that the group indeed meets. As might be expected from any COST action, this does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is the original creator of COST-TERRA article, and I would like offering my opinion on the arguments brought up by Crusio.
 * (1) the fact that all COST Actions are low budget grants is mentioned like a condemnation, but I do not see why the amount of money (which is by the way not that small at some 70-100 kEur/year) behind the activity is relevant. The second part - stimulating cooperation between participants - is indeed the key and I think the simple fact that the activity is uniting researchers from 21 country is in itself a noteworthy evidence of something useful going on;
 * (2) further reading references were just meant to list some useful books for better understanding of the subject's background;
 * (3) the regular references show recognition of COST-TERRA by independent sources as important international cooperation partner, which all presumably demonstrate that the activity is considered important by parties external to the club. The references and achievements might still be a few, but we are just past one year of our operational cycle of four years;
 * (4) not-existing future reference is about the Joint Special Issue of the Telecommunications Policy Journal, which will be published in 2012, but the process has been already going on for a while and the issue is now in editorial review phase. But the point here is again that even simple fact of being a founding partner in such credible undertaking and such respectable company should be demonstrating noteworthiness and overall promise of our activity (while of course I am biased in all those interpretations);
 * (5) now to the final point, that the article does not meet the GNG. Quoting from there: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." My interpretation of this is that significant coverage by reliable sources is hopefully demonstrated by the provided external references, as commented above.
 * Thanks for your consideration, Amedeisis (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a pretty good description of what a COST action is (disclosure: I'm chair of a COST working group myself). Your points are well taken, but either not relevant for this discussion or constituting a misinterpretation of our guidelines. In order:
 * 1/ The small budget is not a condemnation, just an explanation of what a COST action entails. And it is small, considering that most of these actions include dozens of researchers from many different countries. Generally, the money is just enough for one or two workshops/year and a few visits of some researchers or their students to other labs.
 * 2/ That's not a problem, of course, I just had to make clear in the nom that these refs were not about the article subject.
 * 3/ The references: the first two are not independent. The next one is just a list of names with one a contact person for this COST action, not exactly extensive coverage. The next two are again not independent. The 6th is an announcement of a special journal issue. While the journal is a reliable source, the articles are apparently going to be written by project members and, again, not independent. In addition, publishing is what academics do, that is in itself not an activity that would make a person (let alone a large group of persons) notable. The last reference is a meeting announcement. Again, organizing and participating in meetings is what academics do, so this is nothing out of the ordinary either.
 * 4/ See previous.
 * 5/ As seen under point 3, there is no " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so GNG is not met at all.
 * Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to withdraw my nom. --Crusio (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Crusio. this is every bit as non-notable as the dozens of EC project articles we have been deleting, The arguments for keeping are basically "It ought to be notable", and "it will be notable someday"  which are not, and should not be part, of our policy for including articles. The references are not substantial nor about the project itself. References have to be published before we take account of them--otherwise, a article depending on them comes across as promotional.    DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Crusio and DGG's points. It does come across as promotional, without sufficient notability established. Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.