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 no consensus.  Skomorokh  13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insemtives[edit]

Insemtives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. All Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors or self-published. Notability tag removed with terse claim of third party sources, but no third party sources were added. Article "written" in the peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government, by people with a clear COI. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination appears to be confused between "interesting" and "notable" (according to strict WP:N). Whilst I cheerfully agree on the first and certainly the point about "peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government", neither of these give us cause to doubt WP:N. This organisation is part of the EU-funded squillion-euro Seventh Framework Programme and has a vast footprint in the world of the eurocrats (a smaller but still notable one in SemWeb geekery).

If this isn't obviously and immediately clear from the article itself, then that's a problem, but it's a WP:SOFIXIT not a WP:AFD. The sources are all there on Seventh Framework Programme and if someone sees their absence on this specific page as reason to delete for lack of WP:RS, then I guess muggins needs to do the copyediting as necessary. Really though, how about editors being smart enough to read around and understand the difference between less than perfect articles and non-notable topics. We've got bigger glitches to worry more about before this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No independent sources at all means it is unfixable. Many FP7 programmes are notable; I have not nominated them for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 10:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Many FP7 programmes are notable; I have not nominated them for deletion."

Apart from TECFORLIFE FP7 Project and The Large Knowledge Collider, which you speedied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" does not mean "all", or even "most". Abductive (reasoning) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your assertion is that "There are at least some FP7 programmes that are non-notable".

Re-read WP:N. Now this doesn't mean they're interesting or that I would personally bother to write them up on Wikipedia, but I cannot find the wiggle room in WP:N such that any behemoth the size of an FP7 programme could sneak through without leaving enough footprints big enough to meet WP:N. Maybe I haven't seen them, probably they're not added to the article(s) as they ought to be, but it's not credible to believe that would be so invisible as to fail WP:N. Working so hard to prove the opposite is just being tendentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this Insemtives thing very carefully before nominating it. It has zero, none, nil, nada reliable sources for notability. Therefore I met my obligation under WP:BEFORE, and I nominated it in GOOD FAITH. Now it is up to those arguing for keep to provide sources demonstrating notability. Abductive (reasoning) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever else this is, it's content that is so irredeemably confused that no reasonable person should be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever: The objective of Insemtives[1] is to bridge the gap between human and computational intelligence in the current semantic content authoring R&D landscape. The project aims at producing methodologies, methods and tools that enable the massive creation and feasible management of semantic content in order to facilitate the world-wide uptake of semantic technologies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A reluctant Delete. At least some of the partners are notable in the field, but this particular project doesn't seem to have any claims for notability. Almost any project has very ambitious statements and press releases on what it aims to do. Greenleaf (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a perfect example of the static nature of notability. Lots of entities notable in their own right come together to form something that isn't. When people start writing about the group's projects, then this will change. That the article's content looks like something spat out from SCIgen doesn't help. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge on the basis of the material at [1] which cover at least some aspects of the project, the STI Innsbruck part. A good deal of the article can be summarized, some of it drastically--it's a list of partners, not a list of projects. I share the nom's impatience with this group of articles , but I suppose a translation is possible. But a merge is the alternative. DGG (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here's a how-to guide on how to spam Wikipedia with these non-notable projects: http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are those articles about the group, or the work of one of the members? This is an important distinction, since my reading is that this isn't a specific research project but a loose "umbrella" group or fund for some organizations doing research into semantics. Given the nature of the article content, I can't be sure that I've understood this correctly. I'm unable to find a transparent and unambiguous statement of what these people are actually doing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to primarily discuss their plans, not their accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a mix of press releases and articles about some of the work done by the partners. Only one even mentions Insemtives, and it only does so as one of three urls given at the bottom. Abductive (reasoning) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge: Clearly notable — as per Abductive's comment. Perhaps it should be merged into an FP7 related article? Billbowery (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (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.