Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pol-primett

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Re-creation of an earlier version Pol-primett (project), which was PRODded and subsequently speedied as G11. Hence taking this immediately to AfD rather than going through CSD/PROD again. Crusio (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. Another EU research project.  This one, being addressed to a relatively concrete problem (metal theft), is better than some others, but still says very little definite: ....will provide a transnational perspective on the problem and propose strategic and operational solutions which can be applied in partner countries - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you are giving a good reason for Keep instead of delete actually...--BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be a genuine project. I say keep for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody questions the existence of this project. However, there are literally tens of thousands of research projects going on the world over. What makes this one special? Where are the sources? --Crusio (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes this article on a project less notable than many many similar articles on project with the same notability status?... what is the harm in keeping the article?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 12 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) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is a genuine project, but a non-notable genuine project. Joe Chill (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How? explain..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would try to explain it to you, but it appears that you haven't at the very least read WP:GNG (WP:N) which was brought up in two AfDs that you participated in. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems more like na excuse not to explain your stance to me...anyway.. good luck.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notable project outcome. AllyD (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK.how do you mean? explain....--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An outcome - something that has manifestly resulted from the project and been recognised as such. To quote from the policies to which you have been directed: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". AllyD (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Im standing by my Keep !vote.. I think this project article has shown atleast the minimum of notability and importance needed. It also as OK sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete hey, hey, ho, ho, europrojectcruft must go! Also, WP:GNG not met, just in case previous reasoning is not serious enough.--Cerejota (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eurosh1t. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 18 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.