Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ploteus

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ploteus

Ploteus (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)

Non-notable website. There are several references (as almost none had weblinks, I just spend half an hour tracing them and adding URLs; some of those are to HighBeam and are behind a paywall - but several WP editors have access through the HighBeam-WP collaboration). One reference is an in-passing mention in a book published by the EU (not independent). All other references are brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. — Racconish^Tk 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep per WP:ORG WP:NGO and multiple reliable sources on this service of the European Commission.— Racconish^Tk 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While I appreciate your hard work of the past hours (I closely followed your edits), I'm afraid that I'm not convinced. The references that you found and added to the article are either not independent (i.e., EU sources), or very brief, or if they are longer, just in-passing mentions of the subject. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Highbeam(I have full access) shows some 5 news articles covering this in sufficient detail. [1] Dream Focus 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note These are the references added to the article by Racconish that are mentioned in my preceding comment. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. At present, the article has 34 sources, supporting 38 inline citations. Of the 34 sources, 6 are from mainstream newspapers (El Pais, Il Sole 24 Ore, The Guardian, Irish Times), 5 from peer reviewed publications (Education and Training, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Advances in Management Information Systems, Journal of Educational Sciences, Social Science Computer Review), 2 from books (A Clash of Transitions: Towards a Learning Society, The History of European cooperation in education and training: Europe in the making, an example). The official sources quoted, in particular The Official Journal of the European Union and EUR-Lex are appropriate to source official reports of the EC. While these source are amply sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, the subject also meets the alternate criterium of WP:NGO as it satisfies the 2 conditions of international scope of activity and coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources (e.g. on toop of those already in the article PostgradIreland, GTN-Québec, Deutsch-Französische Sprachenportal call it "excellent", "très bon" or "sehr gut"). Additional considerations per WP:NGO are the fame of the project, attested by the number of visits and the number of websites providing links to it, and the factors that have attracted widespread attention, such as the depth of information, the sheer fact it is an official service from the European Commission, the importance given to this "project of common interest" by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council and the fact it considered as a paradigm of pan-European "egovernment" implementation (Note: I am not arguing Ploteus is a NGO but that a criterium that would be met for a NGO is a fortiori valid for a pan-European governmental organization). There is also a number of Springer references I have not been able to access.— Racconish^Tk 10:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Guillaume2303, I have highbeam access, and I assure you, the coverage is significant, they writing entire articles about it. Dream Focus 13:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have HighBeam access, too, and all I see is from those 5 references is a one-paragraph thingy and some in-passing mentions. Which one is the substantial one? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Did you read this one? [2] Very detail review about it, giving praise and ample information about it.

“ The European Commission runs a special website called Ploteus - ec.europa.eu/ ploteus - for anyone looking for information about studying at European, national and regional level across the European Union. It is helpful to students looking to study abroad, guidance counsellors researching options with their pupils and job seekers who would like to do some training in another EU country.

The site is available in 24 languages and provides access to more than 7,000 links to existing information resources in 31 countries. It works like a search engine. You simply input the level of education you are looking for - which goes from primary school to postgraduate studies - the language it should be offered in, your preferred location and your desired subject. For example, a search for an undergraduate law degree taught in French in France brings up options in Paris, Lille, Rennes, Strasbourg and many more. Click on the links provided and they will bring you to the universities' websites.

Ploteus also features information about how the different EU education systems operate, including tuition fees and how they recognise qualifications from other countries. It provides links to education ministries and useful contacts in each member state's education systems, as well as details of all the special school and university programmes and grants provided by the EU.

The website also contains links to lots of useful information about moving to another country to study or work. It includes details of the cost of living in 31 countries, social security and tax obligations and links regarding accommodation and part-time work.

”

Dream Focus 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• A paragraph in a "question and answer" column. I don't really think that is in-depth coverage. But as there are other and better sources now, and I have withdrawn the nom, this is hardly important any more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep per sources added or enumerated by Racconish^Tk --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn Thanks to Racconish' for many hours of hard work and all the references that have been added to the article. I am withdrawing the nomination, because a few of them are substantial. However, I have to say that many are only in-passing mentions and that the article would benefit from some paring down. I understand why all those references were added during the AfD, but as it stands, this is not an encyclopedic article any more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. Please feel free to prune superfluous references. — Racconish^Tk 16:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean "this is not an encyclopedic article any more?" Dream Focus 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have said that it's not a very good article now. Because it lists basically every trivial mention that has ever been made anywhere about Ploteus, it now looks like some drummed-up thing. I understand how this came about, but I think this should be pruned down, keeping the important and relevant references that source relevant material. All those sources that are just in-passing mentions (and many EU sources that are not independent) can go without diminishing the article (in fact, it would look a lot stronger). Generally, lots of in-passing sources is a sure sign of non-notability (which has been established here) in an attempt to make something or somebody look like more than is the case in reality. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I would agree some details may be superfluous and some sources redundant. But I would strongly disagree sources from the EU are per se to be discarded, as - I believe - clearly indicated by the example of the Official Journal of the European Union to source official decisions regarding this official entity.— Racconish^Tk 17:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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.