Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuQoS


 * 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 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

EuQoS

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable project. Existed only for a brief period and does not seem to have garnered much interest then or now. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;the find sources template above generates hundreds of hits in both gscholar and gbooks that discuss this project at great length (many devoting entire chapters or sections of chapters to the subject).  the fact that these are not yet present in the article is not a reason for deletion (WP:BEFORE D3).  it is clearly notable.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were a person, would you regard those citation data as indicative of notability? (As far as I can see, the publications are from project members). I would not think this meets WP:PROF. Even less so considering this is a group of researchers of different universities. Note also that the project's homepage is a dead link. Also, many of the hits in Gbooks are to books using the (Spanish?) word "euqos", apparently not referring to this project. --Crusio (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash;actually i looked quite carefully at the first few pages of hits on both scholar and books, eliminated the ones with brief mentions. these are not citations, they are full on discussions.  i didn't see any in spanish, and i've never heard the spanish word "euqos"; neither has google translate.  if anything it'd be arabic, with the qos, but one doesn't tend to see eu in arabic transliterations.  anyway look at        .  these are random selections from the first two pages of gbooks hits; i think it's clear from these that they're not mere mentions of the topic but discussion of it, and that's what makes it notable. i could easily have found the same results on gscholar.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I speak neither Spanish nor Arabic, but several of those hits quite obviously have nothing to do with this project. And what I meant by citations is an analogy with WP:PROF: we don't judge an academic notable because she/he has published articles. Only if those articles have made an impact do we judge them notable. I strongly feel that things should not be different for a project. That project members publish is to be expected. However, only if those publications have made an impact does this indicate notability. Hope this clarifies. --Crusio (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete since like any other topic would need a truly independent source (not related to the project) to indicate notability. There were thousands of websites that sprung up for a few years and became defunct like this one. Usually I am a devout mergist, but it is not clear where this might fit. Probably the quality of service article itself? Ah, I see it is already mentioned there without any source, sigh. If any technology developed by this group was actually implemented, that might also be mentioned somewhere, but it is not clear it went beyond papers. From what I can tell, Next Steps in Signaling, Common Open Policy Service and Audio Video Bridging are some standards efforts in this area which outlasted this group. Those might need to be beefed up, perhaps mentioning this effort if relevant. Even if it survives this round it is going to fade into obscurity eventually; probably never become notable in Wikipedia sense. W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems the proposed deletion was contested by User:Donalmorris, and I ran across this website that advertises a company founded by "Donal Morris" that seems connected to EuQoS. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another EU-funded academic project.  They held meetings, and collectively wrote a book.  If the project's achievements were more substantial.  No showing of notability, and not very informative at all: During the project the consortium produced a number of deliverables and conducted a number of trials on solutions for end to end quality of service over heterogeneous networks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * comment&mdash;i'm really not trying to be difficult here, but i just don't see what you all mean. i see that the first source i linked to there is by people in the project, although it's published by springer, which adds some weight to it.  the second seems to be by people in the project, but the rest of the ones i linked to there actually seem to not be by people in the project.  i agree that the article as it stands sounds like spam, but i'm mystified as to how you all know so easily that those many sources are not third party.  they sure look third party to me.  oh yeah, and i finally see what you mean about foreign language.  it's greek, it's a river mentioned in thucydides. i didn't even see those because they were obviously irrelevant.  i wasn't arguing lots of ghits means keep, i was saying that there seem to be hundreds of ghits that i actually looked at the abstracts of to be sure they were on topic.  it's hard to be sure of independence with a project like this, but there don't seem to be just a few names popping up, and at least one of the links above is definitely third party, as it's an encyclopedia itself.  i have absolutely no stake in the outcome of this afd, but i'm really mystified as to what everyone else means.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You do have a point that we should be addressing the topic and not the article, which what at least I was talking about. The article itself does not make any assertion of notability, but just has one external dead link to the defunct website, and an inline link to the book published by the project. Since you did the work to filter out some sources, they are worth a look, thanks:


 * 1) The book writen by the project
 * 2) Conference papers from project, refers heavily to  Next Steps in Signaling, and Common Open Policy Service
 * 3) A three volume series of which this one has 1296, seems to mention EuQoS on four pages (I can only see snippets)
 * 4) Mentioned about four times in a book on wireless networks, probably Mobile QoS relevant. Editor from Canada, but it seems a chapter or paper reprint, and talks generally about future networks, even though published in 2008 when the project ended.
 * 5) Chapter by people on the project talking about "next generation" and "future" stuff
 * 6) Paper by members of the project talking about "current work"
 * 7) Snippet shows one page on "Future Internet"; blurb says "expert international contributions" so not sure about independence
 * 8) One mention found in a book about another EU project, so might be same researchers with a different contract
 * My point was that as a reader, I would much rather see a well-developed and sourced article on a scientific subject that describes the progress in a chronological context. For example, the Drosophila melanogaster has been the subject of many many studies over the years. There is one article on the species, not one on each study. I did some work on quality of service such as adding an archived copy of the EuQoS web site as a citation to put it in context with all the other mutlitudes of studies of this problem. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, due to lack of independent sources on the project and as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 17 October 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.