Talk:IDABC

Notability of governmental sources[edit]

Shortly after adding references to governmental sources discussing the IDABC programme, I saw the "Notability" tag on the article. I can understand that someone could question the reliability of governments when it comes to declarations of their intent; however, I consider that the sources included in the article are both secondary and reliable, coming from three different countries. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the sources confirm that IDABC exists (which was not in doubt anyway). However, I am not convinced that these sources provide the independent in-depth coverage required under WP:GNG. Not enough yet to take this to AfD, but enough to tag it for further improvement. --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most "in depth coverage" for IDABC most probably will come from European Commission sources, because the EC is performing evaluations of its programmes -- such evaluations of course most probably do not meet the need to be secondary. This article was created when I needed to refer to IDABC from another article. Would it be better if it merged with it? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, 17 other articles in Wikipedia link to IDABC... Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order not to make all those things redlinks, merging it to another article is certainly an option. As you say, it may be difficult to show notability under GNG, but merging and redirecting would leave the links intact and the info would still be available. I'd certainly be favorable to such a solution. --Crusio (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the text to the EGovernment in Europe article under "eGovernment in the European Commission level" and changed the page into a redirect. I hope I did it correctly.Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]