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The result was Keep as withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut (project)[edit]

Project is not notable; searched for any mention on Google News, Scholar, and Books under the full name "Correct-by-Construction Workbench for Design and Verification of Embedded Systems" since "Coconut" would be impossible. Found nothing. If sourcing can be produced, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure about the notability, but some sources are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], but I'll agree that finding them is a bit of a pain - can't find much from the European Union website :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reliable source that goes over the project in a fair amount of detail. This information should be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia since it is a project lead by a a very notable organization, and its verifiable, so there's no reason not to include this information somewhere. So for now, I say we should keep this. However, if this can smoothly be placed in another article, then we should do that.--SJP (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Added notability statement to the article, along with in line cite and references. Should be enough to establish Notability. However, the article does need expansion and a rework. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I completely agree with the two viewpoints presented above. There are verifyable sources and the [EU] projects are in my opinion also of interest to the general public. --Georg Hofferek (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources provided are independent of the project. In fact, they are the same press release. You cannot cite your own press release and claim that is a reliable source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry; you are talking two different issues here. First, I believe Reuters is independent of the source, even including Business Wire. Second, if it is carried by independent – 3rd party – verifiable – reliable sources, how would that not been verification of Notability? Third, the claim “...Best Proposal for Embedded Systems by the EU's Seventh Framework Programme”, is a claim to Notability which is an acceptable criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and proven by the reference. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the "sources" have identical text. All the sources were written by somebody in the organization and released to the press. They are press releases. Press releases are not independent of the organization, and are therefore not reliable sources. As for the idea that the project is a "best proposal", how do we know it was not the only proposal? Being a proposal means, in my mind, that this project isn't actually producing anything. Can you point to a single scientific paper, news report (that isn't the one press release) or anything else about this project? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phlegm Rooster, do you mind giving some links that prove this was written by the same guy? Also, so what if it only has one source? Though more is preferable, the number of sources doesn't matter. The amount of information they contain is what actually counts.--SJP (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text reads identically, so they are authored by the same person or committee. They are to be found on the typical press release websites. I consider that sufficient evidence. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for relisting: while it is conventional to close AFD discussions with a unanimous consensus for retention of an article as "keep", the editors supporting the retention of this article have relied on claims that republications of the same press release establish the notability of this project, which I find to be unpersuasive. However, note that this article may be retained, even in the absence of citations of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish the project's notability, if it is reasonably believed that such sources exist. John254 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the previous sources provided were republications of the same press release, [6] and [7] clearly constitute original (and significant) coverage in third-party reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of this project's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Thanks, John254, for finding those sources. My main concern was that press releases alone cannot be enough to keep an article. The third party sources do a much better job explaining what Coconut is supposed to do, even the one I read translated by Google. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.