Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPR-Helpdesk

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPR-Helpdesk

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

Article erroneously PRODded (apologies, I missed a PROD from April 2008). Nevertheless, the PROD reason that I gave still stands: "No indication of notability, just a helpdesk website. One of a gazillion things funded by the EU. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added further references, notably from the OECD, the UNECE, the British Council, the University of Münster, innovations-reports, and the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science. The project appears to be notable and historically significant because it "offers an example of what governments can do to help compensate for a lack of technology transfer competence among [public research organisations (PROs)]" and it has "played a key role in building a culture of innovation in EU countries" (from the 2005 OECD report). The project has also been there for a long time, i.e. 16 years (WP:NOTTEMP). --Edcolins (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the hard work that Edcolins has put into this. However, the references are either not independent of the EU/Helpdesk itself, or they are in-passing mentions, not in-depth descriptions (there are a few book references that I don't have access to, but judging from their titles, I'd be surprised if they were any different. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the OECD and UNECE refs are independent of the project itself (and of the EU Commission, which funds it) and provide in-depth descriptions, with more than 2000 characters in each of the two refs. The 800-character description in the British Council publication and the roughly 1200 characters in the Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science also appear independent from the project and support notability. To me, there is significant coverage. Further, the article now describes the project's historical significance/impact, and therefore both WP:GNG and WP:WEB are met. (The project is not merely a web site anyway.) --Edcolins (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. The fact that the European Union funds many things is not a reason to delete any of them. James500 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says that EU funding is a reason to delete anything. It just means that being funded by the EU is nothing special (just like being funded by the Federal Government in the US) and is in itself not an indication of notability. It would slo be nice if you could indicate how this meets GNG (i.e., what coverage you consider to be in depth and independent). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edcolins has already given you an adequate explanation, and there is no reason why I should provide a webliography of what I found in GBooks and elsewhere. Frankly, compliance with your request would be a waste of time that I don't have. Why don't you go through all the sources on the web one at a time, starting with the books etc in GBooks, of which there are well over a hundred, and tell me what you think is wrong with them. James500 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, friendly as always, to my question (posted before Edcolins posted his answer). --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as it seems to meet the general notability guidelines, unless there is another basis for deletion. It also seems to pass the indiscriminate collection of information test. --Bejnar (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (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.