Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R4eGov

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 A bit of clarification: although a few editors here have valid claims that external sources (independent, reliable ones that is) exist, the cliams seem to have been refuted effectively by those wishing this to be deleted, specifically User:Blast Ulna. The "keep" advocates prefaced with "weak", meaning, IMO, that they felt this could go either way. Weighting those !votes along the research done by the delete proponents, I feel this article should be deleted as not meeting WP:N and WP:RS. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R4eGov

R4eGov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:ORG with a mix of WP:COI, WP:V, and WP:SPAM mixed in. Looks like it had previous PROD on it before, but was deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per nomination reason. AndreNatas (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to show in the references that R4eGov is cited on the European Commission's website, among others, to address the notability issue. I will be adding more. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.
Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Firstly, the alphabet soup level of this nomination is one of the worst I've ever seen. Verifiability is easily established by a Google search, and one could make a notability claim on the same grounds. The other concerns are editing and cleanup issues. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:GOOGLEHITS don't establish notability. I never claimed that this was a hoax nor that it didn't exist, but that it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. As far as the other "cleanup" issues, they are completely valid to discuss in an AFD, especially if the article fails to meet the notability requirements in the first place. If notability can be established, I have no problem with it's inclusion. Finally, in regards to the "alphabet soup level of this nomination"... don't be a dick. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well that's just mean. If you read the page on how to make a nomination, it says "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms.". And, if you read WP:DICK a little more carefully, you might have noticed that the last line is "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • oh and if you weren't claiming it didn't exist, could you explain the reference to WP:V in a more clear manner? Beeblbrox (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm aware of what WP:DICK says, and I'm not concerned with being labeled anything, especially after I'm reacting to someone else's rude comments they were made towards or about me. I'm also well aware on how to make an AFD nomination, but it's perfectly acceptable to do it in the manner that I did regardless of what the procedure recommends. Thanks for pointing it out, though. As far as the WP:V: there are no reliable sources in the article. I wouldn't personally consider any of the current references as meeting the criteria set forth by WP:V or WP:RS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me if the article is still up for deletion? And if yes, when will it actually be deleted, and what can I do to stop it from being deleted?
Many thanks
Emmanuelle

Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, to address the verifiability and notability issues, I have added some more references. Most of them are independent from the project. One of them is actually the website of the European Commission, where it confirms that the project is partly funded by them. R4eGov is additionally mentioned in other websites which are devoted to eGovernment issues. I hope they count as reliable sources.

I think that the article should not be deleted, because Wikipedia aims at having "no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover". Any search in google for r4egov will turn up a large amount of hits, all related to the project, and many of which we (i.e the R4eGov consortium) had nothing to do with. The eGovernment community knows about the project, so it seems logical to me that the next step should be to have an entry in Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Emmanuelle

• Weak keep - it's such a mess, but appears to have enough external links that could be references. It's tooo much work for me now. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up massively. ELs do appear to suggest it's widespread, but the current tone reeks of WP:SPAM. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it appears to be a funding agency for R&D for information technology, so it has some chatter in university and IT sites. However, its budget of 11.4 million Euros and its expiry in April 2009 suggests it is a pilot project. The external links are for the collaborating entities, so are not independent. I looked through all 193 g-hits, and there is not a peep about this agency in the regular news media. If it gets mentioned in Der Spiegel, or on the BBC or wherever, then the article can be recreated. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.