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) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Intelligent Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Like I said when I prodded this, "empty words about a neologism". It does sound far more like a policy memo than an encyclopedia article, and indeed is partly lifted from here (complete with unformatted bullet points). And outside a few possible mentions in EU documents (ie not independent sources, ie in breach of WP:GNG), no one seems to have heard of this "Intelligent Europe" concept. There is apparently something called "Energy Intelligent Europe", but to the extent that needs coverage, Energy policy of the European Union can do the job. And there's also something called i2010 (an article that's nearly as bad), where I suppose one might look to do some expansion. But the bottom line on this one is that no independent sources actually confirm the existence of this concept, which is presented here in decidedly bureaucratic tones. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article is copypaste/vio from websites such as [1]. Topic isn't notable. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the topic may or may not be notable, article itself is copy-pasted from various PDF's - and is practically unreadable. Also, the creator of the article removed AfD tag [2]; judging from the edit summary "Lacking in knowledge or information may urge your to deletion, analyze it", he or she may not understand English and uses automated translation, therefore not understanding the issue with the article. --Sander Säde 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO and WP:COPYVIO. Joe Chill (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it but with necessary changes. The topic is very significant for the Future Europe 2010-2020. What and how to improve: 1) remove from the article the part on FP7, which Sander might consider as copy/paste from EU pdfs, which is a public site; 2) change the title to KNOWLEDGE-BASED EUROPE, or KNOWLEDGE EUROPE, which refers to Lisbon strategy, thus it is not a neologism. 3) The achievement of Lisbon strategy for knowledge-based development of Europe and making EU the most advanced knowledge economy globally is necessary to sustain. Among others, intelligent ecosystems (smart cities, intelligent cities, Living Labs), intelligent infrastructure like intelligent energy Europe and smart cities for clean energy ([3]), and the action plan for the internet of things ([4]), which altogether shape the concept of INTELLIGENT EUROPE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — 83.168.44.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. EU policy memos don't belong here unless there's significant independent coverage about them. I see none of that here. Pcap ping 18:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, Intelligent Europe is a concept covering all EU initiaves sustaining knowledge and innovation with broadband networks, digital evnironments, and collaborative IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.155.180 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 94.68.155.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep it, I agree with user 94.68.155.180. This article could be a reference for all relevant EU initiatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsar (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Patsar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep it. Indeed, the concept of Intelligent Europe, Knowledge Europe or Knowledge-based Europe, is most critical for the Future Europe Strategy 2010-2020 to be considered on the EU heads of state summit. Most EC papers are marked by bureaucratic jargon and administrative tones, nothing could be done here. Whatever, the article is an encyclopedic entry, based on official documents, giving a comprehensive survey for the general public. Again, the Intelligent Europe removal will badly downgrade the Wikipedia status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technologist9 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — [reply]
  • I see nothing lost here but a heap of EU gobbledygook. Even the lead is unintelligible. If you can find some WP:SECONDARY sources to rewrite in plain English, please do so. Pcap ping 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most interesting for the validity of Wikipedia: In this voting Wikipedia editors (Biruitorul, Pohta ce-am pohtit,Joe Chill) vote "kill the entry". However, their profiles do not show any competence in EU affairs. Do you have any? or just easy talk about gobbledygook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.155.180 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because those you disagree with are not "experts" on the subject doesn't mean that their commentary are any less valid. Also mind that this is not a vote, but a discussion and a measure of consensus from within the Wikipedia community. With that said, a closing administrator may, on his/her prerogative, give less weight to those who were canvassed here off-wiki. –MuZemike 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. The article requires more in depth analysis, though with the support from different people can end up to be a useful guideline for policy makers (at least in Europe), for the general public to see what is happening and finally but not the least important for the enterprises what opportunities exist in E.U. I can’t recognize reasons to delete it at this moment! Wikipedia supposed to be a global democratic collaborative result or it isn't so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Do Iris So (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Do Iris So (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Seems a mash-up of several EU related papers without cohesion. Jarkeld (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quick search doesn't reveal notability. Whilst this topic/concept may become important and significant in the future, it is policy to not include it in Wikipedia till that point (See WP:SCRABBLE). Additionally, this article seems to just be a collection of indiscriminate information listing presently, and isn't really very encyclopedic. --Taelus (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I literally cannot decpiher any actual content, and it is not remotely encyclopaedic. It makes me sad to think my taxes paid for this. ninety:one 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Ninetyone. These new voters should add some secondary sources and try explaining the article in clear English rather than bureaucratspeak, and go beyond just asserting how wonderfully important this concept is. You're not persuading any of us! Is this related to the Seventh Framework Programme[5] or is it something else entirely? Fences&Windows 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a democracy... Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. These arguments are correct: The issue is not democracy but truth. Does the subject 'intelligent Europe" exist? The reply is yes. See the following quote [7]: "The EU plans to showcase its efforts in environmental protection, energy conservation, transportation and product safety under the theme of "Intelligent Europe," said Serge Abou, the EU's ambassador to China and the EU's commissioner general to the Expo." Thus, it is not a fiction as indicated on the top of the article. However, it needs better writing, making clear how different EU policies (energy, living labs, CIP, transpot) converge on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.178.167.33 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — 109.178.167.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  Verifiability, not truth. –MuZemike 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Abductive. Questionable notability, serious copyvio issues. GlassCobra 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi GlassCobra. Notability is a new issue in this discussion; till now is about "empty words about a neologism". Bytheway how notable are some of your entries in Wikipedia, i.e. "Bloodwrath" (a mental condition characteristic of badgers in the Redwall series); "Acme Tackle Company" (an American fishing supplies store); "Jay Bezel" (a Philadelphia-born rapper); Abdul Sallam (a Philadelphia-born Muslim rapper)? A revised version can deal with Copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone51 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Greystone51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If you read WP:NEO, you'll see that notability has always been at the root of this discussion. Also, this discussion is concerning Intelligent Europe only, not any other articles. —DoRD (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take some numbers about notability: Google "intelligent energy Europe" = 87,500 results. Google "intelligent transport systems Europe" = 31,200 results. Both are parts of intelligent europe + intelligent environment Europe and other concepts of the same ontology. User: Greystone51 —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • (e/c) Yes, and "Intelligent+Europe" yields 14,500. In any case, Google hits is not an acceptable measure of notability. —DoRD (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For information, I have gone through this page and checked every comment, and without exception, every keep vote is either from a brand new SPA (with surprisingly similar grammar and sentence construction) or makes utterly invalid points/just waffles. Needs closing soon before it gets totally covered in SPAm. ninety:one 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Ninetyone. What a wonderful SP(am)Y theory: every "keep" vote is a SPA with similar grammar and sentence construction! Great conclusion, like another "Bertrand Russell's Inductivist Turkey". Keep going. User: Greystone51 —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - This EU "Policy Paper", for lack of a better term, is unencyclopedic and lacks notability in and of itself. —DoRD (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for your good, to be well-informed about the EC policies and programs in wasteful spending the public money, not to be in the dark why the EC is missing all the key Knowledge Europe strategies. Don't allow to make Wikipedia a collection of "lies, damned lies and Wikipedia articles", where "All Wikipedia editors ask themselves the following questions when deciding whether or not to revert the edits: Was it written by a friend of mine? Did they link to an article I previously wrote? Am I in a good mood? If not, is it a means of winding up someone? If unable to answer positively to all of these questions, edits must be reverted, with smug comments posted on the talk page of the offending user." [[8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — 83.168.44.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Good action DoRD. Delete any view that doesn’t agree with yours. Censorship fits in with Editor's power. Greystone51 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Greystone51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• To the above, I removed the strikethrough.

• Delete per WP:NEO WP:COPYVIO WP:GNG WP:ESSAY and the observation that most keep votes are acting as WP:MEAT NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:55, 21 January 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.