Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebLab


 * 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. JForget 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WebLab

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete The article gives no sources. I have searched extensively, and found no evidence of any significant independent sources. (Note that searching is made more complicated by the existence of at least 4 other entities using names such as "Web Lab", "Weblab", or "WebLab".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) * http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2009/03/weblab-platform-aiming-at-providing.html * http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/ifp.pdf * http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/french/daytwo/index-3.shtml * http://2009.rmll.info/IMG/pdf/GaeldeChalendar_UIMA_LSM09_paper.pdf About the "broadness" of the impact, I did not mean that the impact is not broad but that the domain concerned (mainly open sources data processing and intelligence) is not that broad or not that much a 'public' domain. Do we restraint the wikipedia depending on the popularity of the domain concerned ? (sorry my sentence may appear a bit rude, but my english is not that good and I'm not sure how to express this). G.Dupont (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: a platform aiming at providing intelligence (business, strategic, military...) solutions. Yes, but what does it do? Also a business with no baseline showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is needed to make this article more neutral ? what should be removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.184.180.29 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is really a question of making it more neutral. The fundamental point is that there is no evidence that the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are essentially based on ther being a significant amount of coverage in independent sources. If the software has, for example, been the subject of a chapter in a significant book, or if there have been articles devoted to the software in several prominent journals, then it would pretty clearly be notable. Please note that a few brief mentions in articles about other things would probably not be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some "references" I have in mind (applications developed in research projects), there are some more but I may be not know them (especially because the community is "growing" and that we start to see some projects investigating as their software platform without being involved in WebLab). Fore sure the publication is does appear in are not "prominent journals" (well I would happily read your definition of "prominent") because the area impacted by the software is not that broad. So far there is only few scientific articles. I also saw some blog posts (in french) and some small introduction in news, I have to find back the references and you can judge for the validity of such things. G.Dupont (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most blogs are not reliable sources, as anyone can write a blog. From what you say ("the area impacted ... is not that broad", "there are only a few ... articles", etc) it looks as though there is not notability. Certainly nothing in the article at present indicates that there is, nor do my web searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right about blogs, a colleague found back some other sources (mainly french sorry).
 * Of the four links given above:
 * The first is to a pay-to-view site, and I have not checked it.
 * The second is to a set of 59 presentation slides. On slide 20 there is a diagram which appears to be an illustration of how to perform an "annotation service". (Since we have only the slides, not the accompanying talk, the context is unclear.) On this diagram there are some example references to illustrate the method, including 2 example refs to WebLab; this is the only mention of WebLab in the document.
 * The third appears to be a list of exhibitors at an exhibition. Among nearly 200 exhibitors WebLab has a 2 sentence mention.
 * The fourth is a paper (from how reliable a source I cannot tell) which has a couple of sentences telling us that WebLab exists, and little more.
 * Unfortunately none of this comes within a million miles of significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The first is to a pay-to-view site, and I have not checked it.
 * Sorry, this must be the wrong link, since I read the article without payin anything... I'll check
 * The second is to a set of 59 presentation slides. On slide 20 there is a diagram which appears to be an illustration of how to perform an "annotation service". (Since we have only the slides, not the accompanying talk, the context is unclear.) On this diagram there are some example references to illustrate the method, including 2 example refs to WebLab; this is the only mention of WebLab in the document.
 * The third appears to be a list of exhibitors at an exhibition. Among nearly 200 exhibitors WebLab has a 2 sentence mention.
 * True, but then you can also evaluate the impact of the event itself (Eurosatory)... There are hundreds of athlets in NBA, but being only one of them is already something valuable don't you think ?
 * The fourth is a paper (from how reliable a source I cannot tell) which has a couple of sentences telling us that WebLab exists, and little more.
 * We tried to find source not from people from the WebLab team and yes it is still a bit difficult since it has not been recorded. Can we have some delay to find others ? G.Dupont (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

* http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/ifp.pdf  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * new source from new W3C site (mentionning the WebLab being used in a project)G.Dupont (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * delete exceptional, and encyclopedic subject matter will be clearly and unequivocably verifiable. this isn't. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.