Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCCR Trade Regulation


 * 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 merge to Swiss National Science Foundation. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NCCR Trade Regulation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge with the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) article as a subsection under Research Programmes and Centres of Competence in Research. It obviously needs sources, but the fact that they aren't actually cited is different than if they didn't exist at all. It looks like there might be enough coverage for 1 sentence to 1 paragraph about particularly noteworthy NCCRs if it's nested under a more notable main topic (e.g. SNSF), but it doesn't seem like the individual NCCRs are notable enough to each have their own articles though, at least not the Trade Regulation one. PermStrump (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A sensible suggestionRathfelder (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , considering the only edits made to the article since it was created in 2006 are from bots (and maybe a few random category additions from editors who didn't show any other interest in the article), I think you should be WP:BOLD. :-P IMHO, improving the sources/content doesn't have to happen at before its moved. Maybe that would spark some interest in it if there are editors following any of the other related articles. PermStrump (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article above, as this can be mentioned there since there's nothing suggesting a better separately notable article here. SwisterTwister   talk  01:59, 11 April 2016 (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.