Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My-e-Director 2012

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My-e-Director 2012

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

A rather esoteric research and development project enabling end-users to select focal actors and points of interest within real-time broadcasted scenes. I am bringing it to AFD in the hope of getting an answer to my question: "does funding by the Seventh Framework Programme automatically make a project notable enough for Wikipedia?" I think the answer is a definite "no". No other evidence of notability is offered in the case of this project. Wikipedia is emphatically not a place for academics to promote their projects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with Seventh Framework, so I can't really judge the core question - is a Seventh Framework-funded program notable for being a Seventh Framework program? Depends on the coverage, I suppose - if getting this funding generates coverage, then I'd say maybe. In this case, I'm not seeing the coverage I expect, but I'm going to look about a bit more before placing a Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many 7th Framework Programme articles have been deleted in previous AfDs. There is a concerted effort to get these articles onto Wikipedia: http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before bringing an entry to the AFD, a careful check on the facts would help avoid any incorrect conclusions. How can a project in which major stakeholders involved in sport coverage (such as the Olympic games) participate be characterised as an "esoteric research"? First of all the use of the term esoteric is wrong. Esoteric derives from the Greek word eσωτερικό =esoteriko which means interior. Looking carefully at the description of the project, we can se that it is implemented by a European consortium of partners that have both expertise and interest in the promotion of research in personalised media delivery. Therefore, by no means we can characterise it as esoteric, nor can it be linked to a simple effort of academics to promote their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the project does or who its stakeholders are. All that matters is the coverage (or lack thereof) in independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there seems to be a lack of knowledge as regards the way this type of research projects operate. Support by companies is obligatory, so both own funding and business plans for exploitation of results are available. Furthermore, again there is a term that is used in a wrong way? How is the claim that "no independen secondary sources" justified? The sources of the project at a primary level are independed so the problem is at the secondary level? What is the impact of this? In any case, it seems that now the problem is reported to be different than the initially stated (esoteric research!). By the way, there are several entries in wikipedia that have by far a more limited scope and impact, but there is no problem there. What is the special conditions that apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on secondary sources defines them quite well. The sources must be independent of the people associated with the topic. As for articles that have a "far a more limited scope and impact", you are permitted to nominate them for deletion any time you wish. Abductive (reasoning) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this article quiet interesting but it lacks of technical details and references. If authors give some more details, I believe that it would be worth to stay in Wiki Pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platons (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to show notability (and notability is not inherited from supporters or funders. I will also point out that the discussion of the word "esoteric" here suffers from the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notbaility not even close to being established. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2010 (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.