Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Once we cut away all the claims about how important this project is and the obvious vote stacking there is very little Wikipedia-policy-based argument for keeping this article, and many valid reasons to delete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PARSIFAL Project EU

[edit]
PARSIFAL Project EU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article was de-PRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "Proposed deletion deleted as this is one of the few articles in Wikipedia introducing the European viewpoint on critical infrastructure protection". There are what looks like an impressive number of "references" and external links, however most are not independent sources and the others are not about this project (several don't even mention "PARSIFAL"). Crusio (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deliberately uninformative text:

    PARSIFAL is aiming to bring together critical financial infrastructure stakeholders in the public and private sphere to provide a platform of communication for the research community, the European Commission and the industry, and to build a large consensus in the financial, security, industrial and scientific community. Small and medium enterprises in this field are contacted and involved, as well as European Academia and research organisations, and brought together with relevant national or regional actors in the critical infrastructure protection and financial sector.

    PARSIFAL works towards its long term vision by setting short-term project objectives, to be fulfilled during the project lifetime, as well as coordinating actions and research road mapping that contribute to an effective and faster fulfillment of the vision.

    PARSIFAL is focussed on CFI and the involvement of stakeholders from the financial sector and will dedicate special attention to the relation between the protection of CII and CFI and trust, the key business requirement in the financial world.

    Materials, such as position papers, are prepared and confidentially circulated among the partners in order to stimulate discussion and opinion exchange. Personal meeting is encouraged at workshops, enabling a structured and strategic dialogue between stakeholders from the financial industry and researchers who can directly exchange their views and discuss future scenarios and challenges from different perspectives.

    I think all they agreed to do is have a meeting later, sometime, maybe, as soon as their minds recover enough from the PowerPoint presentation at the last one. That could take years. Even if notability could be shown, this text says nothing at great length and has still got to go. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the author: The above doesn't reflect that Parsifal was (!) a project of the European Cmmission, terminated as scheduled and evaluated. I am sorry for the deletion of the tag, a good faith edit. The findings of Parsifal keep being cited, I added University of Savoie and CEPS yesterday. More publications are on their way, I just started collecting additional information. I am open for suggestions how this information could be merged to the more general aspects of CIP in general or Financial CIP in particular. My first language is not English, and I am more familiar with music than with CI, also I was careful not to paraphrase the sources too closely, which explains the (admittedly too) general character of the writing. I would like to see you, Crusio, to read the French paper from Annecy, a language which is even more unfamiliar to me. Thanks for your attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already read the "Annecy paper". It seems to be a presentation at a meeting. It's a bit strange, because the pagination doesn't match the table of contents. It looks like all other presentations were cut out of this file. In any case, yes, there was a presentation (among several others) at (what seems to be a rather small) meeting, which mentioned PARSIFAL. I don't see how that conveys notability. (Note that we use "notability" here in the WP sense, this is by no means a quality judgement, just a judgement about the available sources; however, you've been around here long enough to know that, so this is perhaps too much pontificating... :-). --Crusio (talk) 07:43, 22 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) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is really a far-out comparison, to a totally different sort of relationship on a totally different subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but I think calling this "deliberately uninformative" is not correct. It's just written in PR-speak, which, although a debased dialect, can be translated into English, That term used up above actually links to WP:Patent nonsense, which is simply not correct--it's just a wordy and unencyclopedic way of saying things. Anyone here can understand it if they want to bother. This way of attacking the article is pure abuse, a version of "give the dog a bad name and hang it." It does not discuss whether the subject is notable, and whether the article can be improved. Saying IDONTLIKETHEWAYITSWRITTEN is just as irrelevant an argument as IDONTLIKEIT. I could find similar epithets to describe the style of most Wikipedia articles: the terms primitive and simplistic come to mind as a general characteristic of prose here. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gerda. Anyway shame on me I do not understand how this editor is working. To me Wikipedia seems to be cancer-prone: this is called bureaucracy. Too bad. A trap from competitors?.. Could be. Furthermore Mr Crusio serait davantage connu, il meriterait la carpette anglaise but why bother? JYG NB I am not an author of the page just a member of the Parsifal project. So, of course I am biased. But what kind of legitimacy bears Mr Crusio as the other 700 re. any article. This is not only obscure to me but to many potential or actual authors. Please do not respond with the usual preach, try to think a little bit further ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.88.250.175 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I marked the original description of the project as a quote, and I wonder if someone familiar with the topic could shorten that, now that we are dealing with results and no longer need to know details of the process. The abstract of the eight recommendations is of course also on the general side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no case having been made that justifies deleting Parsifal. It is extremely important that Wikipedia keep Parsifal and similar pages. The direction this and a couple of similar projects give drives hundreds of millions of euros of R&D funding in the EU. This funding is key to delivering security, identity and privacy requirements. R&D work directed at securing the financial infrastructure is key following the 'toxic' debt meltdown and black swan events. Without Wiki entries the wider audience will not have exposure to these extremely important but often poorly published influencing projects. There is a case for Wiki to actual create a premier category for these and any other high value entry. Separating them from the trivia like what color eyes Robbie Williams has would enhance Wikipedia immeasurably.

So the proposal I make is do not delete but give Parsifal an enhanced listing because of it's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not contain articles about organizations or other things that may be important, but on those that are important, and can be shown to be so by 3rd party sources, which is what we mean by notability. Discussing the high purposes of the group is irrelevant. If you can find two such good references, the article will be kept, or, at worst, can be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ontology and 3 refs added, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 5 August 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, Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, the writing style justifies deletion all by itself. Uninformative style is indeed a criterion for deletion, and in fact speedy deletion: ("Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.") This is "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it," and as such is indeed patent nonsense in our technical sense.

    Let's face it, the PR style this is written in is vague, uneditable handwaving. Its optimistic predictions, while probably "appropriate" for a grant application, break our core neutrality policy. The text is too vague and too unspecific to be improved by editing. About all most readers are going to take home from this article is that some people in the EU held some meetings about the security of financial institutions, and published some equally vague papers about the subject, with "ontologies" and other unhelpful jargon. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ontologies are supposed to enable people to understand each other, interesting that you consider that unhelpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they don't work. I know of ontology in the philosophical sense: an account of basic categories, and what sort of things can or can't exist. I also know "ontology" as computer science jargon; somebody was apparently looking for something lofty and metaphysical to call a data file structure. I don't know "ontology" in this new sense, or what they have to do with bank security. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try Ontology (information science). - I removed the (by now historic) project description, trying to be helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -whilst the style of writing could be improved it is fairly easy to understand and conveys the essence of the work. In any case if this criteria is applied to these pages for deletion then 99% of Wikipedia pages are at risk. The entry is without doubt important as it will influence major R&D requirements/funding for at least five years. Hopefully the authors will appropriately reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) — Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment 99% of Wikipedia articles are adequately sourced and as you say yourself, this one isn't. "Important" is not the same thing as "notable". --Crusio (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inaccurate attribution. I did not say this article is it not adequately sourced. It is important for the integrity of Wikipedia that posted comments are not distorted by misrepresentation. I actually do not have an issue with the sourcing. I hope that it can be appropriately sourced to further enhance the article and also satisfy you.
  • Comment It is incorrect to say that this is a project "chosen ... by the commission" if with "commission" you mean the European Commission. That commission put the Framework Programme in place. Individual projects are evaluated by commissions of specialists and the funding decision is taken by the Framework organisation. What you are saying is akin to saying that some NIH or NSF-funded project has been "selected by President Obama". It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do. Again, it's the Framework organisation that does these things, just as in the US it would be NSF or NIH, not Obama. The statement that all these projects are notable just because they have been selected from among many more applications is untenable either. NIH funding rates are below 10% at this moment and nobody is arguing that each and every one of their funded projects is notable. Just as individual NIH/NSF projects are very rarely notable, EU-funded projects will be rarely notable, too. PARSIFAL is no exception, as becomes obvious when one looks through the references in the article. --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken, I should have said "a commission" or - better - the Framework Programme. Not taken: I didn't say "that all these projects are notable", I said a EU project has "a certain notability", - which doesn't equal WP notability, obviously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is incorrect to say,"It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do." EU FP7 projects are both monitored and evaluated by an EU commission representative and appointed independent evaluators who have been chosen for their globally acknowledged expertise in the area of research prior to acceptance of the project by the EU. EU projects like Parsifal will have passed a far higher level of scrutiny than the vast majority of published academic research.Windsurfer777 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we follow that reasoning, then each federal employee in the US is a direct representative of President Obama. The oversight of EU projects is not different at all from the oversight that NIH or NSF projects get, nor is the selection process any different. Should we now start creating articles on all of the thousands of projects these entities fund each year? --Crusio (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a logical conclusion. If you are detained by a contract security officer at Heathrow are you going to argue they have no right as they are not a direct representative of the queen? The commission is a body not an individual with employees and experts it contracts to undertake specific tasks on it's behalf. As you were incorrect in your assertion about EU monitoring I reserve my judgement on the comparison with monitoring other projects. If you have the time it would add significant value to Wikipedia if you did start creating articles on the other projects.Windsurfer777 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but your comparisons/arguments are getting rather silly. If you're detained by a security officer, then that is what has happened and what you would say. Nobody would say: The queen decided to detain me and sent a representative, because she'll be blissfully unaware of your very existence. Similarly with these research projects. Some (or perhaps even most, who knows) commissioners will know about the Framework programs, some will even be familiar with them. None will actually go into the fine detail of individual grants (unless perhaps if there's a significant problem). As all those other projects are just as non-notable as this one, I suggest neither of us loses time creating even more deletable articles. --Crusio (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not actually addressing the point I made and therefore made comments that are not relevant. The European Commission is not just composed of commissioners. I was not making a reference to commissioners but the commission. Your input has stimulated the author into producing a better article. You should be satisfied as it is a positive outcome rather than the negative one of deletion. Is it not time to move on and address the millions of other articles that could do with input or is there is another agenda?Windsurfer777 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The global financial system is as volatile now as it has ever been. The last thing we need are unstable infrastructures underpinning uncertain markets. We need projects like PARSIFAL to help us keep ahead of potential attacks, & disruptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksullivan1 (talk • contribs) — Ksullivan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Please not that "important", "good, "bad", etc. are not criteria entering into the equation determining whether something is notable or not. Plase familiarize yourself with WP:N. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several points:
1. I don't think academic research projects in themselves qualify as notable subjects.
2. That a project is funded/supported/commissioned by the European Commission is neutral as far as it's notability is concerned.
3. It is not unusual for obscure academic papers to refer to other obscure academic papers. In order to be notable IMHO something more is required such as mention is the popular media or winning an notable (in the Wikipedia sense) academic prize. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this copied from another project? Parsifal is not academic, not in popular media, not winning a prize. Hardly to the point. Parsifal is in scientific media and is referenced by DIN, German Institute for Standardization. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The project must be one of the only articles that has a reference that is as notable as the European Central Bank. All it is missing is the White House weblink to gain a higher rating! Seriously there is no doubt that WP:GNG has been met. We are in a financial crisis and a secure critical infrastructure is an absolute requirement. Interesting to see some people in the EU had the vision to look at this. Topical, relevant, important and notable IMHO. Ashtune (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Ashtune (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yet another obviously canvassed vote. Strange that an editor whose only ever edit to Wikipedia is to this deletion discussion should know what WP:GNG is!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had actually read the article when your vote was canvassed you would see the reference link in the first line! I would go further than your comment on academic articles. Get rid of all the pointless and dull as dishwater academic journals that are referenced.Windsurfer777 (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I help you
during the project: IEEE, European Central Bank (ECB)
after the project: Springer Science Business Media, DIN
more to come, but this is not yet encyclopedic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PARSIFAL_Project_EU&oldid=1069472082"