Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRoVisG (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PRoVisG
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project (apart from the odd in-passing mention), no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article was deleted after a previous AfD, but then re-created with an "impact" section. None of that seems to establish notability, however. Crusio (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 July 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) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. The previous problem was that it was written in excessively promotional and nonsensical language, long on "vision" but short on the concrete.  That has not been fixed, and has in fact been made worse in the new version:     Build a unified European framework for planetary robotic vision ground processing..... Develop the technology to better process and visualise the existing and future data from planetary robotic missions in order to maximize the value-added exploitation of these data for research, technology and education.... Increase public awareness of planetary robotic missions and the European contribution to their scientific evaluation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was tagged for G4 shortly after it was re-created, but this was denied by User:Crazycomputers on the grounds that the re-created article contained an "impact" section. Hence the second AfD... --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * possible Keep apparently a significant project, though publication seems still at an early stage. Cf.   I'm not sure how to judge this--the citations to these papers would be the secondary sources.   DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 1 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, Courcelles 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Needs better references but probably existing ones are sufficient to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 20:40, 3 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.