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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter2Geo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be project/software with no evidence of notability from WP:RS. Apparent sponsorship by institutions does not directly convey notability, nor does being one of scores of projects funded by eContentplus; there still needs to be significant third-party coverage showing that this is notable per WP:GNG, which appears to be lacking. Most sources (i.e., found using Google Scholar) appear to be cursory mentions, etc., and/or are otherwise traceable back to the creators of the project. Unless significant WP:RS can be uncovered, this doesn't appear to be a notable, encyclopedic project. Kinu ^t/_c 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This project is gathering all European key players in a major field of mathematics education. Some references to articles published in major journals and conferences in the subject, MKM, CERME, ICTMT are added. These are major conferences in the field of math education and interactive geometry is a major issue in this field. Inter2Geo is the biggest thing that has happened in Interactive Geometry for a very long time. Please ask anybody knowledgeable in math education and you'll see. Thanks for letting us express our view, we missed the deadline.Christian.Mercat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, there need to be third-party references, and that most of the papers, presentations, etc., are traceable back to the creators of the project (i.e., the references section cites three such papers by Paul Libbrecht, who is clearly involved in the project; the same link shows that the reference to Kortenkamp is clearly a primary source as well, and a search shows the same for the other authors, including yourself based on your username). Likewise, based on the inline citations, the references only seem to be used to show what the project is; they don't appear to say why it's notable. To say something is "the biggest thing" and obviously notable is an argument that doesn't hold much water; this is an encyclopedia and there needs to be third-party sourcing to support such an assertion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kinu, we just had our last review meeting at the European Union in Luxembourg. I know there are tons of EU funded projects, but this one is really gathering ALL the key players in Europe around that subject, which is a hot topic in math education. There is simply no way you can find an external source because we were very inclusive and those experts who didn't join us are not many, it is as simple as that. I agree with the "big is not enough" objection, but the fact that the papers related to the project were accepted in top notch conferences and journals is a way of getting third party opinions, because external reviewers decided they were worthy of interest for the whole community. Thanks for your work on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Mercat (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search in scholar for Inter2geo and found many articles by the project itself, of course, but also lots of articles from others in the mathematics education research community. It looks like the project is important for others. It is quite natural that many references of a project are in the project's publications by the project partners, isn't it? --193.197.80.3 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — 193.197.80.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then please give a pointer to these sources for all to see. And yes, it makes sense that there will be content out there that is primary source... the same could be said for anything. But that's not enough to create an article in an encyclopedia. The notability guideline states there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]^{[dead link]}, [9], [10], [11], etc. etc. -- I just copied the links from the scholar search as I wrote above. If you need the full references, please click on "search scholar".

Yes, and if one actually looks at and scrutinizes the sources, most of them briefly mention what it is without any real depth, and worse yet some mention the project a whole one time in one sentence or a footnote of the article. That does not constitute significant coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep European wide research project, with many primary and secondary sources. Clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll ask again, where are the secondary sources? At least responding to the extensive discussion above about the inability to find any such sources would be more helpful then a WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a research project undertaken by a consortium of notable universities. Its unlikely to have a large project footprint outside of it own group until finding's are published, and only then will it be written up, but even then, by a few specialist journals. But it's still a critical project, and WP is not good at keeping encyclopedic articles of this type. The problem with establishing notability through sources in this instance is the problem of system's of thought and action which exist in their own ecosystem, and are critically important in that ecosystem, but may not necessarily be that well known or appreciated outside it. In Wikipedia's case the policies regarding establishment of sources, are fundamentally broken when applied to these sort's of articles, because they are designed for establishing notability in well connected system's of thought. And that means only getting the low hanging fruit. There are many many system of thought, software systems are one, which are well understood and clearly notable, but WP ignores them. Now the low hanging fruit is all gone. That's the reason this should be kept. It is clearly notable, even if only several hundred folk are currently associated with it. It's a critically important, well understood European research project, and it's encyclopedic. scope_creep (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (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) 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all cited sources appear to have been published by Inter2Geo participants (and so are primary sources). 'Find' searches does not give any indication of secondary coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and cannot sustain an article without reliable, independent sources or based on original research. One of Wikipedia's fundamental premises is that it has articles on that of which the world has taken notice, not on things of which certain parties would like the world to take notice. Of course Wikipedia accepts notable scholarly journals as reliable sources, and should this project be written up in them by uninvolved observers, an article on it can be sustained. Should any of the Keep proponents wish to overturn Wikipedia's policies, I recommend going to the talk pages of those policies and attempt to sway consensus to their POV. In the meantime, the conclusion to draw on an article on a project that some people think is important (but which otherwise violates one or more inclusion guidelines) is not having to change the guidelines to fit the article in. It's that an article on the subject can't be sustained. Ravenswing 18:46, 18 November 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.