Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EGS-CC

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EGS-CC

EGS-CC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A google search of "EGS-CC" provides a website for the initiative doesn't come up with any reliable sources. We have some non-independent papers like [1],[2], and [3]. And there's one news article that seems to be more of a copied press release: [4]. Nothing really to indicate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect To European Space Agency. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in favor of keeping the EGS-CC article

A google search of "EGS-CC" provides at least 70 different links to articles all around the world wide web. The EGS-CC initiative is a multi-million euros project funded by the European Space Agency with a Consortium composed of multiple companies.

There are many independent papers about EGS-CC:

• An EGS-CC based Core Control Segment [5]
• The Design of the European Ground Systems - Common Core (EGS-CC) [6]
• The European Ground Systems – Common Core (EGS-CC) Initiative [7]
• The Operational Adoption of the EGS-CC at ESA [8]
• Evolution of Mission Control System development with EGS-CC [9]
• An EGS-CC-based Core Control Segment [10]
• OPALE : Reducing complexity of EGS-CC Automation Procedures [11]
• Monitoring and Control Operations Preparation Framework for EGS-CC Based Environments [12]
• EKSE: A Command Line Interface for EGS-CC based Systems [13]
• Challenges to evolve a S2K-based PROBA GS towards EGS-CC [14]
• Objectives and Concepts of the European Ground Systems Common Core (EGS-CC) [15]

The articles above will be added to the EGS-CC article page.

EGS-CC will replace SCOS 2000 in the future. EGS-CC is target to be used in the ESA mission Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer. Link here: [16]

The information above indicates that the topic EGS-CC is highly notable in particular in the Ground Segment Systems for Spacecraft. CesarCoelho (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you @CesarCoelho for highlighting those. The nominator pointed out that while there are papers about the project, the ones they found are ‘non-independent’, i.e. they are published by people involved in or associated with the project. As this is a collaboration between many different agencies and organisations, it is hard to pick out which authors are linked with it. Could you please add a comment about each of the sources you’ve listed, indicating whether you think it is independent or not? Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you @Mccapra for your comment. Please notice that the sources mentioned above are scientific papers which have a high level of credibility as they usually are subjected to independent peer-review and high scrutiny from its scientific peers. Therefore, scientific content is one of the best sources to refer to in Wikipedia. For example, you can read the following sentence in the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) website: "AIAA publishes its peer-reviewed content in advertisement-free publications, ensuring that research results are presented in an unbiased environment." [17] CesarCoelho (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you. Yes I understand that these are scientific papers. What I’m trying to understand without investing many hours of time is whether those papers are all/mostly/not at all authored by people involved in or delivering the project. If they are by people independent of the project then notability is certainly established. If they’re by people involved in the project, it’s less clear. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A random sample of four of the papers provided have "ESA-ESOC" listed as the affiliation of at least one of the authors, suggesting that these scientific papers aren't independent. I'll evaluate all of them if that is necessary. I agree too that if you could provide independent ones (i.e. one of the authors isn't affiliated with ESA or some other institution involved in the collaboration), this would be a clear cut case and I would withdraw my nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems that ESA-CC information is disseminated through the ESA but in the future will meet more notability once it takes over for SCOS and is covered by other independent sources. In this regard I would say the entry has future potential. In response to @Mccapra does it make a difference that the acceptance of some of the articles by peer review process into the AIAA establish academic consensus, thus independent of the subject authors WP:RS/AC? Bioforce12 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:Primary seems to show that the primary source could be used as it is reputably published. Bioforce12 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Loking through the papers, I found one which would classify as a independent and secondary source: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". The paper is: "Challenges to evolve a S2K-based PROBA GS towards EGS-CC" [18] In short, the paper talks about the challenges to evolve the PROBA mission Ground System from its current SCOS 2000 (aka S2K) into an EGS-CC system. The authors are associated with Spacebel, a company which is not part of the EGS-CC consortium according to the EGS-CC official website. [19] CesarCoelho (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There has been a lot of discussion on independent sources above, but it raises the question of what counts as independent. In this paper, for instance, the authors' affiliation is to CNES, the French space agency, so not directly involved. But CNES is a member of ESA and is on the steering committee of the project. That paper makes clear that not only CNES, but DLR (the German space agency) and major aerospace manufacturers like Airbus and Thales Alenia are also involved. Clearly, the project is not just a handful of researchers at ESA trying to push their idea, and with so many organisations involved has gone well beyond what WP:INDEPENDENT is trying to address. This is a major initiative and we should stop trying to determine whether or not the smallprint of guidelines has been met and take more notice of WP:5P5 which says in regard to guidelines that [t]he principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. By the way, Spacebel (mentioned by CesarCoelho above) may not by in the consortium, but they have worked on the project [20]. Which would kind of makes my point, there's hardly going to be a major aerospace organisation in Europe that isn't involved in some way. SpinningSpark 14:33, 8 June 2020 (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.