Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EucA


 * 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. More then adequate due diligence has taken place and the required sourcing has not emerged, Since no further discussion after relist will go with what we have Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

EucA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator without a rationale. No improvements have been made in the month since. I stand by my original assessment. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am rather puzzled by Mr Konieczny's proposal for deletion. Not only because of his account of the facts, but also because I don't agree with his statement that the article does not pass the notability requiremetnts.
 * First of all, as far as I can recall, I did not de-prod the article, as it was never prodded. Mr. Konieczny did place a notability requirements warning on the page. After I improved the references of the page, I notified Mr. Konieczny of my reasoning why I don't believe the page does not pass the notability requirements. Afterwards, I have improved the page more.
 * Secondly, to make a substantial argument: why wouldn't a large multinational network involving thousands of students from several residence networks or universities and hosting many of them on many events throughout the year that has been in existence since 2008 meet the notability guidelines? "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit": the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the other way around. Malus Catulus (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia obeys by different rules than a tribunal (and you oversimplified the question of burden of proof, but let us not get astray). In that case, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:BURDEN, which states that the burden in on the one who puts or opposes removal of material (paraphrased, you might want to read the whole thing). And of course, it makes sense, since proving something is not notable or not discussed in any source is proving a negative, which is impossible in most cases (see Russel's teapot).
 * I found nothing by searching "european university college association" ("euca" can refer to the European Control Association as well), and the references in the article do not impress me: #2 is link-rotted, #3 mentions it only on the "links" page, #4 is primary, #5 looks primary as well although I cannot read Polish, #6 and #7 are press releases published on a site that may be connected with the subject, #8 is a project of which EUCA is a member which poses problems of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTINHERITED, #9 is written by the subject and I doubt the website is selectively choosing what it publishes (almost looks like a library/bookshop catalog site), #10 is a scan of a print edition of #1. Note also WP:INHERITORG even if the various projects (#5-#7) are notable.
 * All we are left as references is thus one article, written by Fabrizia Sernia who has a WP:COI with the subject (judging by the other references), in Il Sole 24 ore which is a significant journal nonetheless. Per WP:ORG, "a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization", and even then there is a question of whether something published independentely but written by someone close to the subject is independent. Tigraan (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: after some diff archeology, the article was indeed prodded by Piotrus, then deprodded by Malus Catulus as part of a larger edit adding references more than two hours later. It may be Malus Catulus having an edit conflict and mismanaging the fallout rather than deliberately removing the prod and denying it on this AfD, but I do not buy it (two hours of edit conflict ? Come on...). Tigraan (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. This was indeed deprodded by User:Malus Catulus here:, through I am tempted to say that due to Marcus unfamiliarity, he might have forgotten about it and didn't know how to verify it (WP:AGF). I am also of the opinion that our notability policies are not sufficiently inclusive with regards to academic and scientific NGOs. Still, my personal opinion is that such networks have to show some modicum of recognition of peers, and this is very difficult to measure - particularly in case of such projects. Having read the article several times, I still have no idea what this organization is really doing. If it was to disappear, would anyone notice? In the end, we have to remember this is an encyclopedia, not Yellow Pages or a catalog of all NGOs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse the slight hot headedness of my comments yesterday. So I guess I did de-prod, but I don't remember why, perhaps out of mistake because I just wanted to remove the not enough sources tag, or maybe consciously, after Piotrus said on the talk page that we could leave it for a few years, but I just don't recall. Now as for notability: If you search for, e.g. EucA summer school or Modes project, you will find many references, announcements, etc. from universities, organisations or students throughout Europe. Then there is the sole24ore article, published in the offline paper itself, and the other references from e.g. polibuda, a student information portal. According to WP:ORG, there is not an absolute requirement on the amount of independent sources. So other factors, such as the actual "knownness" in many different countries and the involvement of many students and organisations should be taken into account as well. Many students deal with EucA, and they will expect to find more information on it on Wikipedia. - Richard Prins Malus Catulus (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Marcus/Richrd - no harm was done; and I also forgot that I decided to postpone this a bit longer. Still, we have ti keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopeida. It is not a repository of useful information. Would EucA be in any other encyclopedia? Yes, Wikipedia is the biggest, but it doesn't mean its all-inclusive. And yes, our criteria for NGOs need improvement. Let's see what others think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem for the deprodding stuff, everyone can forget what he has done. But WP:ORG does state an absolute requirement on the amount of independant sources: An organization (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So that puts at least a lower bound at 1, which the references do not have (see my analysis above), and the precision A single source is almost never sufficient (...) that follows means that barring extraordinary circumstances, the lower bound is in reality 2. The burden to prove "extraordinary circumstances" would then be on the one claiming they exist, and I do not feel convinced that being an NGO is such a circumstance.
 * Now to be honest, I think that two independant, reliable, deep-coverage sources is too big a hurdle for most subjects (not only NGOs). For example, if a NYT article about EucA written by someone unrelated to it, I would agree that this plus the sole24ore source would be sufficient to demonstrate notability, even though the sole24ore article is written by a COI source.
 * N.B. You added some sources, probably in a good faith attempt, but again press releases or annoucements do not demonstrate notability. What we need is a few good sources, not a lot of bad ones. Tigraan (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however, requiring a reputable english language source like the NYT might be difficult for European organisations that operate transnationally but primarily in regions where the native language is not English. BTW, why do you say the author of the Sole24ore article has a COI? I searched the name, Fabrizia Sernia, and couldn't find a connection just now, but please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me to be a fine source however. Then, more COId publications like rivista universitatis could make it reach the threshold.
 * Anyway, while I understand your arguments, I would say it is a bit arbitrary in the light of the unclear criteria to delete EucA now despite some (admittedly lower level) sources and large reach (many students deal with it and participate in its activities), just because the article has been brought under closer scrutiny. I think there are many articles (excluding spam or advertising), especially on local phenomena which would not meet the bar now set. Malus Catulus (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * About my COI accusation against FS, it seems she wrote the text here, so I assumed she is related to EucA, but I may be mistaken in which case I apologize for my hasty conclusion.
 * The notability criteria are more clear than you seem to think. I agree that many articles on Wikipedia, if not the majority, do not fullfill those criteria but that is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Finally, if not enough sources are found, the default decision is to delete per WP:BURDEN (which does not mean that "deleters" should not search sources, or that a lack of consensus about the reliability of some sources is equivalent to the absence of such sources). Tigraan (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: language of the source is irrelevant. If you find an in-depth coverage in a major French, Italian or Vietnamese journal, it holds the same weight as NYT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  07:05, 9 April 2015 (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.