Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Melinda Lantos/Civil Protection Financial Instrument

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. — ξ xplicit  02:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Melinda Lantos/Civil Protection Financial Instrument


Large series of 2010-era userspace drafts. All look to be ill-formatted to becoming articles and seem to cover various EU agencies and instruments. These are notable items I think but the sourcing is not clear and the pages all include "See also" sections with internal references. If anyone thinks anything is worth keeping, then perhaps those can be moved to draftspace but overall I'm not certain about any particular page. Looks like a giant WP:WEBHOST issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as mentioned. SwisterTwister   talk  22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Improve and mainspace. I oppose the deletion of these drafts. Their content is not obviously useless and might be improved. I think we are more likely to get an article from each of these drafts than from a new attempt to start from scratch. There is too much already there to invoke TNT. I suspect that if these were in the mainspace now an AfD would actually fail because of IMPERFECT and PRESERVE. A move to the draftspace would be reasonable, as they are more likely to be improved there. James500 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think they should be moved, fine I won't object, but each one is a giant piles of text including very complex EU regulatory language with a single reference listed which I don't believe discussing their allegations. Someone are already in mainspace I believe (mostly redirects I think) so I hope you're going to actually work on them because I honestly think they are all basically 'blown them up and start over' drafts and I don't think we need to have AFC deal with them in six months for G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I see no prospect that any useful articles will come from these. Problems include:
 * Notability, often a problem with these EU programmes, which are of interest to the Eurocrats who devise them and to the contractors they employ, but seldom attract the sort of substantial independent comment required by WP:N. In this case there is only a single reference cited, the "Handbook on EU Funds".
 * Updating: these were posted over a period of six weeks, more than five years ago; the author never edited again. The programmes described here are proposals: the articles list their aims and objectives, but were they completed? What were the results? Unless someone is willing to do the extensive work necessary to bring them up to date, I do not think a detailed snapshot of the state of these EU programmes as at Oct/Nov 2010 is useful or encyclopedic. The right approach, if someone is interested enough to do it, would be an overview article like Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, with links to the actual EU websites about the individual programmes. That way a reader who wanted all this detail could get the up-to-date version.
 * Tone: these are, or at any rate read like, the EU telling us about its own programmes and what they plan to do. An encyclopedia article should not be the story the subject wants to tell about itself; it should be an independent view, including outcomes as well as aims, but I doubt that independent sources exist to support that.
 * Copyright: given that the user posted the first sixteen of these substantial pages in a single day, 14 Oct 2010, I strongly suspect that they have been copied from some source, perhaps the "Handbook on EU Funds". I have not found a source on-line, and I suppose it is just possible that they were all prepared offline and then input in a batch, but that seems to me unlikely.
 * If they are moved to Draft space, we shall just be having this discussion again in six months. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) There isn't a shred of evidence of copyright infringement offered here. I personally have no interest in listening to paranoia. Editors who want to make accusations of infringement should read the source allegedly infringed before making accusations. (2) The accusation of non-notability appears to be based on a failure to carry out a search for sources. Searches for "Civil Protection Financial Instrument" and "civil protection"+"financial instrument", for example, bring up suitable sources in GBooks. The idea that these things are only of interest to 'Eurocrats' is plainly incorrect. Actually universities devote a huge amount of effort towards the study of 'politics' in a broad sense that includes that sort of thing. And of course these things are of interest to those (sometimes very large) sections of the public they affect. Certainly there can be no deletion on that grounds until someone credibly promises us that they have actually done WP:BEFORE. (3) "Out of date" and "tone" are good examples of invalid arguments for deletion. There are independent sources and demanding that non-independent sources never be used is out of the question because of ABOUTSELF. James500 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you actually want done here? "Improve and mainspace" means nothing other than "someone else fix this for me please." Do you want them in mainspace now? Do you want to userify them to your userspace? If so, I'll live with that. Do you want them put in draftspace and then we delete them under G13 in six months? Do you want them kept? Why? Because a user who hasn't appeared for years could in theory come back, improve them and then take them to mainspace? The topics may be worthy of an article but these drafts are going to take work to convert into something useful and we have nothing other than you passing the buck demanding that someone else do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Improve and mainspace these' - 166.176.57.117 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost all such articles in mainspace that have been nominated for deletion have been deleted, because of the lack of findable references. I do find this a little strange, because I would think there ought to be references, but neither I nor anyone else has been able to find them. If anyone does find suitable sources, they wouldreally have to be rewritten from scratch, because there is obvious copypaste from  official publications, even if we cannot find it either.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see why the batch creation of these pages, and the character of them, should be inconsistent with them being the original non-infringing work of an expert on this sort of thing working for a company that professionally provides some kind of educational instruction on this sort of thing. Isn't that what the user who created them professed to be? Frankly, I would expect a company to write articles offline and then upload them in large batches because that is more efficient (eg division of labour). Likewise, I would expect an expert to use a lot of jargon. I really think that someone should actually look at the source alleged to be infringed instead of just assuming that there is infringement. James500 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.