Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUPER


 * 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   merge to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. v/r - TP 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

SUPER

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project, no independent sources about the project, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is very saddening to experience repeatedly that the wiki user Crusio is trying to purposefully silence/ sensor European ground-breaking research activities that is heavily backed by European research, industry, and the European Commission. This is very unfortunate that this user continues with the intention of trying to silence objective information about long-term international research under the excuse that it is somehow not in line with the wiki policies. I believe such a desire is not aligned with the wikipedia spirit. Suggesting the deletion of this page will be very unfortunate for European ICT industry and research organisations. The fact that this user apparently is a research director in a French research organisation makes the proposed deletion suggestion very unfortunate and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprovider66 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please desist from comments about other users. Perhaps focus instead on whether the article in question can be demonstrated against notability criteria acknowledged in independent 3rd party references etc? AllyD (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article's current form is an abomination. It's ironic that a project which aims to simplify IT by introducing semantic context can't even write a decent PR piece for Wikipedia. This article is dense, filled with unlinked/unexplained jargon and original research. All but one of the sources offer but a brief mention of researchers affiliating themselves with the project, there's no real discussion of it outside of theory and planned future research. Some of the sources appear to be hosted on IP-SUPER's site as unpublished papers partially funded by the organization. After reading (sometimes skimming) the sources, I think that the SUPER project itself does not warrant exclusive encyclopedic coverage. If SUPER leads to notable discoveries or breakthroughs or the organization becomes recognized and documented then I'd reconsider deletion. As long as the article approaches intelligibility. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or upmerge brief mention into Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development if any kind of notability can be demonstrated. As it stands, this text fails to meet encyclopaedic intent, chattering along using unexplained acronyms (BP? guessing business process, but is there such a problem in saying so?). I'm trying hard to avoid value judgments, but a document written like this would not be well received in most contexts. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge: at first I thought it was a joke, when it said it was "set in the environment composed of finite number of entities..."? Hardly unique there. Maybe the meaning was lost in translation. It looks defunct for two years now, so will not get any more notable. There seem to be a fair number of these projects that had articles written two or three years ago that read like they are just pastes of the grant application. I started a merge but am unsure of how to proceed. Please see Talk:Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development for the discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Conflict?: This page seems to be in the same category as Webinos, which is up for deletion and as of today shares a contributor, Truthprovider66. The source group feels that Wikipedia is discriminating against them by not letting them advertise, which emphasizes the importance of deleting all advertising pages that may have slipped by.  This page was never real, and User:Crusio has caught up with it.  A family of them probably exists, emanating from this offsite canvasing project.  A relevant discussion appears at Articles_for_deletion/Webinos.  TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for finding the canvasing page. Actually that page (posted in 2007, four years ago) does say "articles should be concise, avoid marketing terminology and reference its sources". Most of these articles do not comply with those suggestions. If the project itself was ever notable or not, hard to tell from the article, which has the burden of proof. W Nowicki (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge the essential facts to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. I agree that the article, as presently written, is a shocker. However, this is a valid, funded research programme and we should have some core information about it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge as TerriersFan described. The general topic of these Framework Programmes is noteworthy.  Giving a free billboard to every individual project is absurd.  We might as well try to have a page for every medical research project at the National Institutes of Health.  Many of them would probably appreciate the greater visibility (at no cost to themselves) and the increased funding that might result. Ornithikos (talk) 18:26, 4 August 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.