Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICT Romulus


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ICT Romulus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google news search yields nothing, but gives more than a few hits on the book and scholar search. How independent these sources are is not clear to me. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notable sources aside from the company's website, I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister   talk  04:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Another article about a EU research project, with vague but high aims, written in hyper-optimistic gibberish: improving significantly Java Web Development, in terms of productivity, security and reliability. Romulus approach is based on a metaframework integrated with enterprise systems and IDEs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . Google scholar search returns multiple academic and non trivial references about the ICT Romulus and the Roma Framework project, therefore WP:NOTABLE. An obscure, badly written article is not alone a reason to delete. Marokwitz (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no independent sources found to support notability. Keep As per Marokwitz this does appear to be notable among European academics. Article needs work but will be easier to improve from here than to start over. --Kvng (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Really? Perhaps Marokwitz and/or Kvng could point us to some of these substantial sources that they have located? I don't see them, nor do apparently SwisterTwister and Smerdis of Tlön.Crusio (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2011
 * Just click the "scholar" link at the top of the AfD. --Kvng (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that. It shows that project members have produced some publications, which is to be expected (publishing is what academics do). Nothing what I see on Scholar is independent and substantial coverage of this project. --Crusio (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong point. You've turned me around. --Kvng (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another Europrojectcrufttm non-notable per GNG - chatter among academics is different from significant coverage - if we had articles for everything the boffins discuss and peer reviewed we would might as well have fanfiction published to. Just because its academic doesn't mean its notable.--Cerejota (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2011 (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.