Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Research and Technology Development in Ecuador


 * 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   no consensus. no consensus after 2 weeks JForget  22:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Center for Research and Technology Development in Ecuador

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker.  But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable.  LotLE × talk  09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies &mdash; not ministries, but agencies &mdash; automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * weak delete Not all government agencies are notable, especially not small free standing research institutes. I see no evidence at all for this one, as the link given produces a 404 error. The G search is essentially negative, but might be positive if run under the Spanish title, but Ido not see even that. On what basis are these articles being written.?   DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.