Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure Process-oriented Integrative Service Infrastructure for Networked Enterprises

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Process-oriented Integrative Service Infrastructure for Networked Enterprises[edit]

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

This is yet another article on an Seventh Framework Programme, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. In this case there are only 49 regular Google hits, but there are some Google Scholar hits. These Google scholar hits are for announcements of the project, written by involved persons, and are not reliable, independent secondary sources. Article itself is written in Gobbledygook and is probably copypaste from somewhere. Prodded by me and seconded by User:Josh Parris, then deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet requirements of WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT or WP:CLUB. Josh Parris 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also patent nonsense: Nowadays the global competition is forcing companies to be more effective and agile, and also being innovative what comes to new business models. SPIKE will provide a new solution for building more flexibility to the collaboration between networked enterprises and finding new business opportunities. I defy the world to find any meaning in this string of buzzwords and glittering generalities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You appear not to have read WP:NONSENSE. This text, while vapid and poorly-written, is certainly not "patent nonsense" under the definition there. —Dominus (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claims by the nominator that the Google Scholar hits are "not reliable, independent secondary sources" appear to me to be incorrect. Some of them at least appear to have been published in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is the gold standard for Wikipedia reliable sources. For example, this item. The article also contains several references that appear to cite conference proceedings for conferences in which the authors were involved only as participants; if legitimate, these would also qualify as reliable, independent secondary sources. The claim that the article is "written in gobbledygook" is unsubstantiated; it seems plausible to me that it is written in overly technical jargon with which the nominator is unfamiliar. Either way "gobbledygook" is not a reason for deletion; see WP:RUBBISH ("the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion"). Finally, nominator's claim that the article "is probably copypaste from somewhere" is pure speculation. I suggest that the nominator should review the Google search results and the references cited in the article and, depending on the outcome, write a correct and substantive rationale for deletion, or withdraw the nomination. —Dominus (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], the first author on the source you provide is connected to SPIKE. This means the source is not independent. Every source will show this exact same pattern; they are all connected to the project. Abductive (reasoning) 19:25, 23 March 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.