Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Target (project)

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Target (project)

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

Looks like someone copy-pasted a white paper. This article is filled with buzzwords and promises, and cites only affiliated sources. Even those that have passed peer review have been cited a handful of times at best. Notability not established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very large, early, multi-disciplinary e-Science project that needs to be covered. Added a section on technological results and a number of references. Removed promotional phrasing.

Weak keep I removed a lot of the promotional language in the introduction and history area. There are few third-party sources, and none the talk about the project qua project. I'm not sure this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but I'm not familiar with the topic. LaMona (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references (written by authors not affiliated the Target project) on the use of the technology developed by this project to the Euclid Dark Energy missions and to the Muse instrument. This goes some way to correcting the lack of third-party sources. In order to establish notability I added references to some news articles which have appeared in the Netherlands media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellingCelt (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to an article (Nature genetics, June 2014) about the Genome of the Netherlands Project, which used the infrastructure of Target to conduct whole-genome sequencing analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.39 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sautekai (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Added another external reference mentioning the Target project ( the annual report of the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy) WP:NOTABILITY[reply]

Keep Added another web reference by a third party (eScience center, Amsterdam, Netherlands) to the Target project WP:NOTABILITY. Sautekai (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added two more external web references ( Case studies published by IBM) to the Target project WP:NOTABILITY. Sautekai (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added an external reference to the Target project by Bits&Chips WP:NOTABILITY Sautekai (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition clearly establishes the eScience center as collaborating with the Target project, and IBM as being a supplier of technology, so both are affiliated sources. But the newspapers can be good sources, I guess; I'll check them as soon as I'm back behind the paywall. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sautekai has a clear and present conflict of interest; see their user page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added three references to papers using Target technology in refereed journals (which have been cited more than the other referenced papers). But note that these papers all have some authors associated with the Target project (unlike the set I added yesterday, which had no Target related authors). I also replaced the failed reference on "Classical Astronomy Pipelines", by an independent reference which gives an overview of the pipelines used in 30 years of NASA missions. Finally, I added an independent reference to the section of Technology Results, but it needs more. I don't want to mislead anyone, so note that I too have a link with the Target project (almost all scientists interested in Big Data in the Netherlands will be associated in some way with Target or the National e-Science Centre or both). However, I'm not a co-author on any of the references quoted in the article and I'm certainly not paid to write Wikipedia articles. TravellingCelt.

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

Relisting comment: Note: I struck duplicate !votes by User:Sautekai and User:TravellingCelt above. Only one !vote is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something obviously went a bit wrong in the previous discussion. One comment and one vote attributed to me, was not in fact made by me! So I edited the previous discussion to reflect this. I will add some more reference from groups which use Target technology, but which are not part of the project (e.g. TACC, Austin). There are also some television interviews, could these be useful to demonstrate notability? TravellingCelt (talk • contribs)

Keep: 19nov2014: Claim has been made that this article reads like an advertisement. Looking up the guidelines on this I quote: "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." This article is not about a product and not about a company. It is about a collaboration project. Hence I consider the advertisement argument not applicable. If I am wrong, please provide the argument. To be fully transparent: I am an astronomical researchers that is also affiliated with the Target project. Me and other researchers at the University of Groningen have really benefitted from the non-commercial research and development by the Target collaboration. Gervankleef

Looking at our own definition of company, it's "an association or collection of individuals, whether natural persons, legal persons, or a mixture of both." That's obviously the case here; Target Holding is also a company in the narrower sense, and the Target Project in fact employs a PR person, Sautekai, making it indistinguishable from other types of companies. Non-commercial vs. commercial doesn't matter, as WP:SOAPBOX forbids "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. This is an article about the Target Project and its technology (WISE). It was explicitly and deliberately not meant to be about Target Holding, which is an entirely separate entity. The names may cause some confusion, but Target Holding has exactly the same role in Target as IBM and ORACLE. So noting that Target Holding is a company is no more relevant than noting that IBM is a company.

It doesn't matter. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" is forbidden by WP:SOAPBOX. I was replying to Gervankleef's cherry-picking from that page, using a narrow definition of "company". I'm not confused as to the relation of the company and the project. I was merely pointed out that it was written in the style of an advertisement, regardless of what is being advertised. WP:SOAPBOX aside, this is forbidden by WP:NPOV, which is a nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy, so splitting hairs over what is what is not a company is irrelevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added extra (non-affiliated) references. This includes one showing the origin of WISE in a pan-European project (the OPTICON Optical Infrared Coordination Network) which was as set up to consider a standardised European survey system to facilitate research from the current generation of wide field survey cameras. I think this puts the technology developed in an historical context. TravellingCelt

I think there is a concensus that the early drafts of this article were not acceptable since it was writtenm in a style that resembled an advertisment. But several contibutors since then have extensively re-written the article to avoid this. Moroever a large number of references have been added in order to show that this is not reporting original research (although I'd personally remove the section on Technological Findings) and that it has at least national notability. So I'd like to know what still needs to be improved. If the article can never be acceptable because some of the principle contributors are involved in the project then I'd rather know that now and we can all stop wasting our time. Currently, IMHO the article in its present form does not seem to contain any "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment", but if it still needs more independent scientific references or more references to show notability I could add these.TravellingCelt

I've removed that from the rationale, let's stop that discussion. I'll leave the notability question open for others to comment. I actually think that more independent news sources would be a better addition to establish social/political relevance; scientific papers are going to be written by affiliated researchers in the case of so recent a project. I searched volkskrant.nl, nrc.nl and trouw.nl, but couldn't find anything in their online archives (I don't have access to LexisNexis from here). Computable, cited in the article, is an example of a good news source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more references from Computable. One dealing with the Target infrastructure, the other dealing with the economic impact. TravellingCelt

Added references to articles in volkskrant.nl and that nrc.nl discuss OmegaCAM. TravellingCelt

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.