Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALERO (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SALERO

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

Ephemeral project. While some of the results may be worth of inclusion in the appropriate articles on the subjects of this project, the project itself is not notable. There's one article about it, as well as some in-passing mentions elsewhere, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to object, there's much more than one article on the projectes, there a number of scientific publications at different conferences and different journals. See http://www.salero.eu/en/resources/index.html (I agree, that some of them should be added as references to the article) Kig8472 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry (I see you also removed the "dead link" tag in the article), but for me that link just goes to a placeholder page and does not contain any info about this project. As I said in the nom, the results that some project participants published my be interesting to add to the appropriate articles, but there's nothing special otherwise about this project of which there are thirteen to a dozen. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Two of the references in the article go to the same placeholder page. Judging from the titles, they are presentations by a project member at a scientific meeting.Presenting at a meeting (except if it is something like an invited plenary talk) is nothing out of the ordinary. That publications resulted from the project is normal, too. The project's members are academics and publishing is what academics do. In analogy to our guidelines for academics, just having publications is not what makes one notable. It's the interest that was generated by those publications, if any, that generates notability. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the links to the placeholder page, I fixed them, they should work now. Kig8472 (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the links. That some of the participants reported on their work at meetings is to be expected. Apart from they themselves, nobody else seems to have written about it, though. --Crusio (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Looks like a pretty broad and international project. [1]. Could use some extra sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The language here is slightly better than some others, but is still not very informative, and misuses the word ontology (apparently actually meaning a format for data): The project investigated the production of digital content to cross-platform, re-usable media and provide "intelligent content" for games, web-animation, movies and broadcast. The SALERO project team aimed to create ontologies for describing media content and vocabularies to produce tools for creating and managing multimedia objects and for re-using them in different contexts than the ones originally defined. Unless something more came of this than a handful of papers in obscure computer science journals, I don't see this as notable. Note also that impenetrable articles about European research projects are a recurring problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the use or misuse of the term "ontology" in the subject's field, see ontology (information science). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into coverage by a summary sentence under the Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development#The_programmes, as has been done for other such projects. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more secondary sources, but minimum requirements of notability seems to be met. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 3 August 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.