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 - "things that were given money by someone" is not grounds for inclusion Shii (tock) 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIBIS[edit]

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

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

Project that existed briefly and apparently did not leave much of a trace. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a potentially notable SIBIS; it's apparently a device that "special" children are made to wear to keep them from banging their heads on the wall. But this article is about yet another EU research project, this one dating from 2003, that apparently never amounted to much, with an extremely vague programme: Its aim was to develop "innovative information society indicators to take account of the rapidly changing nature of modern societies and to enable the benchmarking of progress in EU Member States" in an Information Society. If I read more text like that, I'm going to need a SIBIS. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The run-of-the-mill page referred to above (...yet another...) is only an essay and not yet Wikipedia policy. Although SIBIS was the first major survey to look at the Information Society, to judge by the comments at this AfD to date, it obviously ain't sexy enough for Wikipedia... And yes, the other SIBIS (Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System) is also notable enough to have an entry in this encyclopaedia - desambig. pages are great.--Technopat (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Already exists: Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System.--Technopat (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is an offsite page that basically encourages people to start articles on minor EU research projects without regard to whether they meet any notability criteria for inclusion. As a result, literally dozens of these things show up at AfD. They also tend to be written in slanted, grandiose, and uninformative grant-application language. This one's by no means the worst: this one, you can at least follow well enough to see that its mandate is quite unspecific. I invoked WP:MILL to point out that it's an example with precedents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Information society and then redirect to Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System. No need for disambig since there have been no links to this in the three years of its existence. I would call this a Wikipedia:Permastub since it only existed for two years, and thus unlikely to ever get more notable. Any conclusions about the "rapidly changing nature of modern societies" is going to be stale by now, but might have been worth mentioning in a more historical context. The policy is general notability, and yes, these discussions tend to be based on opinion and essays are good to summarize those. The other guideline is that wikipedia is not a glossary: every acronym that was ever invented for a couple years does not get its own article. Thousands come and go each bubble. Encyclopic entries are supposed to be fully developed topics. Nothing to do about being "sexy" or not, just what an encyclopedic topic really is. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yet another essay invoked. Essays are great - and many of them contain stuff that should, in MNSHO, be incorporated into policy, but until that happens, the "relevant guidelines will be given more weight". Since when does temporality per se preclude notability? The claim - referenced - that SIBIS was the "first large-scale cross-national survey" to approach the subject of the Information Society, seems pretty significant to me. I started this article 'cos Wikipedia was my first stop after coming across this acronym in a second publication and had no idea what it was about - except that it obviously meant a lot to the different authors citing its results. There was nothing out there at the time - nor about any other SIBIS, for that matter. I have participated in some half-dozen EU/transcontinental projects - some major, and most of 'em for bigger bucks - and it would never occur to me to create an article on any of them. Not because of any possible conflict of interest, but simply because they are not encyclopaedic. Well aware that there's not much more padding available for this one, except to provide some of the data provided by the surveys, I realise that I'm repeating myself, but obviously this "article" will have to go to make up for all that space needed for fully developing the fancruft on pages about soccer/baseball players/trainers, popstars, models and the like. --Technopat (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never claimed temporality per se precludes notability. Just that it needs evidence that it meets the general notability guideline, (guideline, not essay!) and since it has none in three years probably will not getany. Looking more closely at that first source, it is clearly by someone in the project, and is talking about a "module being piloted" (present continuing tense), and the "first... to be conducted in all EU Member States as well as the USA". The "subject" it is talking about is "telework", not "Information Society" in general. From the other sources it seems the study was in fact done. If it really was still the first by then or not, maybe. So as I said, yes, it was worth a mention, which is why I did not vote to totally delete, but just not an encyclopedic topic of its own. And please do feel free to help with getting rid of the fancruft; I spend probably two thirds of my day doing it, but we need all the help we can, with the Wikimedia folks refusing to help by tweaking article creating ability. W Nowicki (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please substantiate your claim that the first reference is "clearly by someone in the project". Likewise, regardless of your statement that it is about telework, the full reference states the following (my bold): “This paper is based on the work in SIBIS, an ongoing EU Fifth Framework research project that develops and pilots innovative indicators for measuring Information Society developments … This module is being piloted in the SIBIS general population survey, the first large-scale cross-national survey to be conducted in all EU Member States as well as the USA.” and said paper is included in a 795-page publication titled "Challenges and achievements in E-business and E-work". So, as per the reference, it is not "merely" about telework, and even if it were, it would not invalidate the claim. Regarding your invitation to join in the work getting rid of fancruft, I shall reply on your discussion page so as no to go off-topic here. --Technopat (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? The authors of the paper cited are Tobias Husing and Karsten Gareis of Emperica GmbH. On the http://www.sibis-eu.org/team/team.htm website page, it gives Emperica as the prime contractor and these two as the first members of the project team. The project web site at http://www.sibis-eu.org/publications/articles.htm has the first two papers listed are from those two authors. Of the papers I have had published or read in scientific journals, I cannot remember any whose entire content was about a project that was still going on (using present tense in the article) by an author not in that project. The title of the paper is "A New Approach Towards Measuring Spread and Outcomes of Telework" (the paper title is not given in the wikipedia article reference, but I will assume in good faith it was due to laziness). The sentence before the one you quote says "..we will outline a questionaire module for the measurement of telework." So the claim in the journal itself is about one "module" of the survey about "telework" and the claim in the wikipedia article is misleading. So yes, it should be mentioned in the article on telework. Just as in, say, Drosophila melanogaster mentions the first of many studies of this species. There is no stand-alone article on just that first study. W Nowicki (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were able to find the time to check the document so thoroughly and thus save Wikipedia from the clutches of a plot to undermine its readers. Likewise, I thank you for assuming good faith and deciding that my apparent error was simply due to laziness and that I was (deliberately?) trying to mislead. All I did was ask you to substantiate the claim, about the authors, which you seem to have been able to do - I didn't ask you to question my integrity. But Wikipedia can count itself lucky to have such dedicated and polite editors out there to wrong-foot all us evil-doers. I'll call it a day here so as not to go even further off-topic. Curious experience it's been. --Technopat (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per W Nowicki. Not notable. Cannot be improved. --Kvng (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couple of side mentions, fails notability. Even the wasted budget, just a few millions, is peanuts by EU standards. See no need to further weigh down the already bulging Information Society article with this Brussels-based bloat. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2011 (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.